Matt, that ship sailed long before you or I thought about building networks. You can't change it at this point. Just embrace it.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> To: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <li...@mtin.net>, "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 7:44:49 AM Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Because it's not universally supported, poorly thought through, and no backwards compatibility. Is there a better option? NO, not at this time. But it certainly could have been better thought through how it was implemented. On 9/28/20 8:37 AM, Justin Wilson (Lists) wrote: > It is coming back to that, but you still have so much going on that you > need the open ports. I don’t gt why people fight IPV6 so much. > > > Justin Wilson > j...@mtin.net <mailto:j...@mtin.net> > > — > https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) > https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog > >> On Sep 28, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net >> <mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote: >> >> Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a >> dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers? >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:*"Justin Wilson (Lists)" <li...@mtin.net <mailto:li...@mtin.net>> >> *To:*"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org >> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> >> *Sent:*Monday, September 28, 2020 7:22:28 AM >> *Subject:*Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 >> >> There are many things going on with gaming that makes natted IPv4 an >> issue when it comes to consoles and gaming in general. When you >> break it down it makes sense. >> >> -You have voice chat >> -You are receiving data from servers about other people in the game >> -You are sending data to servers about yourself >> -If you are using certain features where you are “the host” then you >> are serving content from your gaming console. This is not much >> different than a customer running a web server. You can’t have more >> than one customer running a port 80 web-server behind nat. >> -Streaming to services like Twitch or YouTube >> >> All of these take up standard, agreed upon ports. It’s really only >> prevalent on gaming consoles because they are doing many functions. >> Look at it another way. You have a customer doing the following. >> >> -Making a VOIP call >> -Streaming a movie >> -Running a web server >> -Running bittorrent on a single port >> -Having a camera folks need to access from the outside world >> >> This is why platforms like Xbox developed things like Teredo. >> >> Justin Wilson >> j...@mtin.net <mailto:j...@mtin.net> >> >> — >> https://j2sw.com <https://j2sw.com/>- All things jsw (AS209109) >> https://blog.j2sw.com <https://blog.j2sw.com/>- Podcast and Blog >> >> On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling >> <sterling.dan...@gmail.com <mailto:sterling.dan...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Matt Hoppes raises an interesting question, >> >> At the risk of this being off-topic, in the latest call of duty >> games I've played, their UDP-NAT-breaking algorithm seems to work >> rather well and should function fine even behind CGNAT. Ironically >> turning on upnp makes this *worse*, because when their algorithm >> probes to see what ports to use, upnp sends all traffic from the >> "magical xbox port" to one box instead of letting NAT control the >> ports. This does cause problems when multiple xboxes are behind >> one NAT doing upnp. If upnp is on and both xboxes are fully >> powered off and then turned on one at a time, things do work. But >> when upnp is off everything works w/o having to do that. >> >> There are many other games and many CPE NAT boxes that may do >> horrible things, but CGNAT by itself shouldn't cause problems for >> any recent device / gaming system. >> >> It is true that I've yet to see any FPS game use ipv6. I assume >> that's cuz they can't count on users having v6, so they have to >> support v4, and it wouldn't be worth their while to have their >> gaming host support dual-stack. just a guess there >> >> -- Dan >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:29 PM Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net >> <mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote: >> >> Actually, uPNP is the only way to get two devices to work >> behind one public IP, at least with XBox 360s. I haven't kept >> up in that realm. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:*"Matt Hoppes" <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net >> <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> >> *To:*"Darin Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com >> <mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>> >> *Cc:*"North American Network Operators' Group" >> <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> >> *Sent:*Sunday, September 27, 2020 1:22:51 PM >> *Subject:*Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 >> >> I understand that. But there’s a host of reasons why that >> night not work - two devices trying to use UPNP behind the >> same PAT device, an apartment complex or hotel WiFi system, etc. >> >> On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Darin Steffl >> <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com <mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >> This isn't rocket science. >> >> Give each customer their own ipv4 IP address and turn on >> upnp, then they will have open NAT to play their game and >> host. >> >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 12:50 PM Matt Hoppes >> <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net >> <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote: >> >> I know the solution is always “IPv6”, but I’m curious >> if anyone here knows why gaming consoles are so stupid >> when it comes to IPv4? >> >> We have VoIP and video systems that work fine through >> multiple layers of PAT and NAT. Why do we still have >> gaming consoles, in 2020, that can’t find their way >> through a PAT system with STUN or other methods? >> >> It seems like this should be a simple solution, why >> are we still opening ports or having systems that >> don’t work? >
