"hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?" Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will go down and more people will choose to use it. That's kind of my point. Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT transversal they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the same service for less. Either would result in more people using that kind of service. Imagine what *might *be possible if direct communication would work without port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood. "no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..." That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products) "my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA is a wasted dns few bytes. Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well." It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get around it to a certain extent. Session border controllers cost tens of thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Chris,
"because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a server also work just fine..."
Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to exert
hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?
to make that work. Also, keep in mind that your game example is not someone running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.
no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the 'fastest player' to be the server for group play...
my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA is a wasted dns few bytes.
Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well.
-chris