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