From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>
To: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net>, "Mike Hammett" <nanog@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
> j2sw@mtin.net <mailto:j2sw@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 <nanog@ics-il.net
>> <mailto:nanog@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)" <lists@mtin.net <mailto:lists@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
>> j2sw@mtin.net <mailto:j2sw@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.daniel@gmail.com <mailto:sterling.daniel@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 <nanog@ics-il.net
>> <mailto:nanog@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" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net
>> <mailto:mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>>
>> *To:*"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com
>> <mailto:darin.steffl@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.steffl@mnwifi.com <mailto:darin.steffl@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
>> <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net
>> <mailto:mattlists@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?
>
To: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net>, "Mike Hammett" <nanog@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
> j2sw@mtin.net <mailto:j2sw@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 <nanog@ics-il.net
>> <mailto:nanog@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)" <lists@mtin.net <mailto:lists@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
>> j2sw@mtin.net <mailto:j2sw@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.daniel@gmail.com <mailto:sterling.daniel@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 <nanog@ics-il.net
>> <mailto:nanog@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" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net
>> <mailto:mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>>
>> *To:*"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com
>> <mailto:darin.steffl@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.steffl@mnwifi.com <mailto:darin.steffl@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
>> <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net
>> <mailto:mattlists@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?
>