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?
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> 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?
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> 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> 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?
Not every game are made the same or use the same network engine. Which games on PS4 are more problematic in your opinion? Jean From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 2:23 PM To: Darin Steffl <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> 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?
Call of Duty seems to be especially problematic.
On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:45 PM, info--- via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
Not every game are made the same or use the same network engine.
Which games on PS4 are more problematic in your opinion?
Jean
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 2:23 PM To: Darin Steffl <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> 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> 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> 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?
Call of duty is not a game, it’s a religion and you can’t compare this game to classic voip. If your voip is a bit degraded, you will have a delay of few milliseconds and/or weird background noise. In Call of Duty, a few milliseconds delay means you are dead before even knowing it. Also, competitive ppl there like to DDoS your line just to win. This game is full of cheat and hack to make sure the players will win. On another hand, you are probably already aware of the 3 NAT types in gaming. Type 1 (Open): The system is directly connected to the Internet (no router or firewall), and you should have no problems connecting to other PS4 systems. Type 2 (Moderate): The system is connected through a router properly, and generally you won’t have problems. Type 3 (Strict): The system is connected through a router without open ports or DMZ setup, and you may have problems related with the connection or voice chat. You can check your PS4 nat type in the network status. If you have a Type 1 (Open) NAT you are sure that your game will connect easily with others. What is your NAT type in your PS4? Jean From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 2:51 PM To: info@ddostest.me Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Call of Duty seems to be especially problematic. On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:45 PM, info--- via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: Not every game are made the same or use the same network engine. Which games on PS4 are more problematic in your opinion? Jean From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> > On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 2:23 PM 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> > 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?
I don’t game. It’s a plague. But I know plenty who do. I’ve often thought the games should just “net split” like IRC does. Got lag? Suddenly you’re playing with a totally different group on the same lag as you.
On Sep 27, 2020, at 4:04 PM, info--- via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
Call of duty is not a game, it’s a religion and you can’t compare this game to classic voip. If your voip is a bit degraded, you will have a delay of few milliseconds and/or weird background noise. In Call of Duty, a few milliseconds delay means you are dead before even knowing it. Also, competitive ppl there like to DDoS your line just to win. This game is full of cheat and hack to make sure the players will win.
On another hand, you are probably already aware of the 3 NAT types in gaming. Type 1 (Open): The system is directly connected to the Internet (no router or firewall), and you should have no problems connecting to other PS4 systems.
Type 2 (Moderate): The system is connected through a router properly, and generally you won’t have problems.
Type 3 (Strict): The system is connected through a router without open ports or DMZ setup, and you may have problems related with the connection or voice chat.
You can check your PS4 nat type in the network status.
If you have a Type 1 (Open) NAT you are sure that your game will connect easily with others.
What is your NAT type in your PS4?
Jean
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 2:51 PM To: info@ddostest.me Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
Call of Duty seems to be especially problematic.
On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:45 PM, info--- via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
Not every game are made the same or use the same network engine.
Which games on PS4 are more problematic in your opinion?
Jean
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 2:23 PM To: Darin Steffl <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> 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> 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> 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?
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 Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> To: "Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <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> wrote: <blockquote> 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 > wrote: <blockquote> 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? </blockquote> </blockquote>
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> 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> *To: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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> 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> 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?
Aren't most of the major operators using IPv6? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:33:56 PM Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 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 > 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 Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Matt Hoppes" < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net > To: "Darin Steffl" < darin.steffl@mnwifi.com > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" < 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. <blockquote> On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Darin Steffl < darin.steffl@mnwifi.com > wrote: <blockquote> 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 > wrote: <blockquote> 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? </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
Many... but not all... and just because the operator is doesn't mean the person you want to play with is. And just because the operator is doesn't mean the router you or the other person is using supports it. On 9/28/20 8:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Aren't most of the major operators using IPv6?
----- 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: *"Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:33:56 PM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
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?
Are non-ISP-provided routers all that common anymore? Aren't there enough IPv6-enabled operators with critical mass of IPv6 deployments that IPv4-only networks can be treated like the second-tier citizens they are? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 7:42:16 AM Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Many... but not all... and just because the operator is doesn't mean the person you want to play with is. And just because the operator is doesn't mean the router you or the other person is using supports it. On 9/28/20 8:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Aren't most of the major operators using IPv6?
----- 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: *"Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:33:56 PM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
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?
Yes No. On 9/28/20 8:44 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Are non-ISP-provided routers all that common anymore?
Aren't there enough IPv6-enabled operators with critical mass of IPv6 deployments that IPv4-only networks can be treated like the second-tier citizens they are?
----- 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> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Monday, September 28, 2020 7:42:16 AM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
Many... but not all... and just because the operator is doesn't mean the person you want to play with is. And just because the operator is doesn't mean the router you or the other person is using supports it.
On 9/28/20 8:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Aren't most of the major operators using IPv6?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:33:56 PM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
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/>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
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?
What evidence is there that non-ISP-provided routers are prevalent? I don't know anyone that doesn't have an IT power-user intervening that has their own router. If something works without a separate router, most people aren't going to go out of their way to get one. https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ It does seem like there's enough IPv6 use in the last mile networks where they don't need the IPv4 users anymore. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 7:45:24 AM Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Yes No. On 9/28/20 8:44 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Are non-ISP-provided routers all that common anymore?
Aren't there enough IPv6-enabled operators with critical mass of IPv6 deployments that IPv4-only networks can be treated like the second-tier citizens they are?
----- 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> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Monday, September 28, 2020 7:42:16 AM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
Many... but not all... and just because the operator is doesn't mean the person you want to play with is. And just because the operator is doesn't mean the router you or the other person is using supports it.
On 9/28/20 8:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Aren't most of the major operators using IPv6?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:33:56 PM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
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/>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
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?
I'm outside of Tampa (18th largest MSA in the US). The two providers here, Spectrum (former Brighthouse area) and Frontier (bought out Verizon's FIOS offering) are both IPv4 only (including on their SOHO/SMB offerings). Every time I've called in, I've asked if they are offering IPv6 yet. Most of the time I've had to follow that up with explaining what IPv6 is, even to the technical support people. So I'm stuck with doing an HE tunnel still for my IPv6 access. If anybody has a petition to change this with these providers, let me know, happy to sign it. Jeremy On 9/28/20 08:44, Mike Hammett wrote:
Are non-ISP-provided routers all that common anymore?
Aren't there enough IPv6-enabled operators with critical mass of IPv6 deployments that IPv4-only networks can be treated like the second-tier citizens they are?
----- 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> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Monday, September 28, 2020 7:42:16 AM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
Many... but not all... and just because the operator is doesn't mean the person you want to play with is. And just because the operator is doesn't mean the router you or the other person is using supports it.
On 9/28/20 8:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Aren't most of the major operators using IPv6?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:33:56 PM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
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/>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
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?
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:30 AM Jeremy Bresley <brez@brezworks.com> wrote:
I'm outside of Tampa (18th largest MSA in the US). The two providers here, Spectrum (former Brighthouse area) and Frontier (bought out Verizon's FIOS offering) are both IPv4 only (including on their SOHO/SMB offerings).
So I'm stuck with doing an HE tunnel still for my IPv6 access. If anybody has a petition to change this with these providers, let me know, happy to sign it.
I empathize. My home provider, Suddenlink, is one of the laggards. Spectrum here in the Austin area, though, is fully IPv6 enabled. Last year I did a fair amount of testing at my younger son's apartment. It's frustrating. I don't have any sort of detailed breakdown because that's not our primary focus, but my very large organization has been supporting a daily average of between 50k-60k VPN remote workers from around the country in all sorts of locations. Because of COVD-19, it's been a significant percentage increase, though our normal levels are quite large. We see about a quarter of those incoming connections over IPv6. Most of our remote workers are non-technical so that's an indication of not just ISP deployment but penetration into their home networks. Again, we don't have any breakdown since that's not our primary focus, but it does provide a high level perspective. Scott
For sure it isn't everywhere, but most of this is about critical mass. In North America, is IPv6 available to the critical mass of end-users? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Bresley" <brez@brezworks.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 8:29:20 AM Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 I'm outside of Tampa (18th largest MSA in the US). The two providers here, Spectrum (former Brighthouse area) and Frontier (bought out Verizon's FIOS offering) are both IPv4 only (including on their SOHO/SMB offerings). Every time I've called in, I've asked if they are offering IPv6 yet. Most of the time I've had to follow that up with explaining what IPv6 is, even to the technical support people. So I'm stuck with doing an HE tunnel still for my IPv6 access. If anybody has a petition to change this with these providers, let me know, happy to sign it. Jeremy On 9/28/20 08:44, Mike Hammett wrote: Are non-ISP-provided routers all that common anymore? Aren't there enough IPv6-enabled operators with critical mass of IPv6 deployments that IPv4-only networks can be treated like the second-tier citizens they are? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> , "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 7:42:16 AM Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Many... but not all... and just because the operator is doesn't mean the person you want to play with is. And just because the operator is doesn't mean the router you or the other person is using supports it. On 9/28/20 8:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Aren't most of the major operators using IPv6?
----- 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: *"Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> , "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:33:56 PM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
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?
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 — https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling <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?
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 Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net> To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <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 — https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling < 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 > wrote: <blockquote> 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 Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Matt Hoppes" < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net > To: "Darin Steffl" < darin.steffl@mnwifi.com > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" < 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. <blockquote> On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Darin Steffl < darin.steffl@mnwifi.com > wrote: <blockquote> 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 > wrote: <blockquote> 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? </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
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 — 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> 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?
I’m still waiting for my ISP to turn on v6 so the consumers of my neighborhood ISP can get v6 service. Going to poke them again today actually. - Jared
On Sep 28, 2020, at 8:37 AM, Justin Wilson (Lists) <lists@mtin.net> 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
— 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> 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
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
From: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net> To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <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
— https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling <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> 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
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> To: "Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <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> 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> 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?
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?
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" <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?
Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers?
Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 AM Mike Hammett <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> *To: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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
— https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling <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> 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> *To: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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> 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> 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?
Being employed by one of these elusive game hosting companies, I can tell you that the dedicated server model is very much alive. And rather than the version of 20 years ago where there was one central server in the world, they are now deployed in a globally distributed manner. Games ought to work just fine with NAT, but I have seen some cases where developers incorrectly assumed it was OK to have a fixed source-port & destination-port combination to initiate a session. This works fine for the first player to connect from behind that NAT, and for the second one it requires NAT + PAT which may still work without a hitch. Where it gets interesting is when $NAT-box also picks a fixed source-port if it had to apply PAT, for example by always translating $originalPort to UDP/1024. You could probably imagine that the third player attempting to connect from behind a $NAT-box like that will be having a hard time initiating the connection, maybe also disrupting the second player that was already connected. TLDR, good netcode has no problems with NAT. Best regards, Martijn ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+martijnschmidt=i3d.net@nanog.org> on behalf of Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> Sent: 28 September 2020 16:21 To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers? Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 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/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<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 - All things jsw (AS209109) 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/> [X]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[X]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[X]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[X]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [X]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[X]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[X]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [X]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[X]<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?
Yet (apparently) worse? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Beecher" <beecher@beecher.cc> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 9:21:09 AM Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers? Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 AM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> 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 Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" < lists@mtin.net > To: "North American Network Operators' Group" < 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 — https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog <blockquote> On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling < 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 > wrote: <blockquote> 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 Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Matt Hoppes" < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net > To: "Darin Steffl" < darin.steffl@mnwifi.com > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" < 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. <blockquote> On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Darin Steffl < darin.steffl@mnwifi.com > wrote: </blockquote> <blockquote> 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 > wrote: <blockquote> 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? </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
The number of times when a decision is *both* cheaper *and* better is miniscule compared to when the decision is being made to optimize one axis relative to the other. And in an industry with narrow margins, most often that decision will run squarely along the "cheaper" axis, at the expense of the "better" axis. I'm sure you've faced that same decision in your business, the same as the rest of us over the years... Matt On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:17 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Yet (apparently) worse?
*From: *"Tom Beecher" <beecher@beecher.cc> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Monday, September 28, 2020 9:21:09 AM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a
dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers?
Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure.
For certain styles of games or for games with crappy netcode, it can be. For most others performance is perfectly acceptable in a peer to peer in the vast majority of cases. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:11 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Yet (apparently) worse?
----- 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: *"Tom Beecher" <beecher@beecher.cc> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Monday, September 28, 2020 9:21:09 AM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a
dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers?
Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 AM Mike Hammett <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> *To: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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
— https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling <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> 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> *To: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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> 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> 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?
Delay, or “lag” in gamer parlance is everything. Have too much lag and you are dead without realizing you are dead. Lag frustrates gamers enormously and is probably one of the main drivers of NOC calls. It seems to me that a purely client/server model will inherently have more lag issues than a peer-to-peer game. Not to mention cost… if you are the game publisher suddenly you’re faced with maintaining a global footprint of servers with all that implies. /Carlos On 28 Sep 2020, at 11:21, Tom Beecher wrote:
Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers?
Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 AM Mike Hammett <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> *To: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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
— https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling <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> 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> *To: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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> 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> 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?
Delay, or “lag” in gamer parlance is everything. Have too much lag and you are dead without realizing you are dead. Lag frustrates gamers enormously and is probably one of the main drivers of NOC calls.
Lag is frequently abused by gamers as a crutch excuse for why they aren't as successful as their favorite Twitch streamer or their friends. Often times that extra 15ms of extra latency that their kid is screaming about because they got fragged means nothing when their monitor is only refreshing frames at 100ms. It has however given rise to generally useless products like the old Killer NICs, which only provided benefits to network performance if you were running a potato of a machine that was being run over by the game, in which case any other core component upgrade was a better choice. But they made a lot of money eventually being bought, so good for them. Peer to peer games absolutely do suffer from latency issues, often either artificially induced on one side to abuse poor netcode, or essentially DoSing a target such that they cannot properly play. A quick example that comes to mind is the Destiny series that has suffered from this problem since day 1, but still made Bungie a lot of money while doing so. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 3:30 PM Carlos M. Martinez <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
Delay, or “lag” in gamer parlance is everything. Have too much lag and you are dead without realizing you are dead. Lag frustrates gamers enormously and is probably one of the main drivers of NOC calls.
It seems to me that a purely client/server model will inherently have more lag issues than a peer-to-peer game.
Not to mention cost… if you are the game publisher suddenly you’re faced with maintaining a global footprint of servers with all that implies.
/Carlos
On 28 Sep 2020, at 11:21, Tom Beecher wrote:
Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a
dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers?
Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 AM Mike Hammett <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> *To: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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
— https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling <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> 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> *To: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl@mnwifi.com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <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> 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> 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?
Correct - but with a server based model you can look at the lag to the worst clients and add lag to the other clients so everyone has a level playing field. On 9/28/20 3:30 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Delay, or “lag” in gamer parlance is everything. Have too much lag and you are dead without realizing you are dead. Lag frustrates gamers enormously and is probably one of the main drivers of NOC calls.
It seems to me that a purely client/server model will inherently have more lag issues than a peer-to-peer game.
Not to mention cost… if you are the game publisher suddenly you’re faced with maintaining a global footprint of servers with all that implies.
/Carlos
On 28 Sep 2020, at 11:21, Tom Beecher wrote:
Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers?
Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 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 - All things jsw (AS209109) 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?
...I'm guessing someone didn't read "Harrison Bergeron" in middle school, then? Crippling everyone down to the lowest common denominator is a wonderful recipe for creating a service or platform that *nobody* wants to use. If I connect through an AOL dialup account to an FPS gaming platform, you really, *really* shouldn't be adding 300ms of latency to everybody else on that server, just to be fair to me. I mean, sure, it's *fair*--but it also makes the game far less playable for everyone else, and they'd be completely right to stop paying for the service and move over to a different platform that doesn't hobble their game playing any time someone on a slow connection joins the game. ^_^;; Matt On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 1:30 PM Matt Hoppes < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Correct - but with a server based model you can look at the lag to the worst clients and add lag to the other clients so everyone has a level playing field.
Most games do implement a "minimum latency" where no matter how low your latency is, you'll always have at least 30ms or so (from what I've seen) to keep things fair for MOST broadband internet connections. So no, you cannot bring your laptop into the data center, [proverbially] plug directly into an IX, and expect to wipe the floor with your competition; you'll be artificially placed at the same level as someone with high speed cable service in the surrounding area. -Matt On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 3:17 PM Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
...I'm guessing someone didn't read "Harrison Bergeron" in middle school, then?
Crippling everyone down to the lowest common denominator is a wonderful recipe for creating a service or platform that *nobody* wants to use.
If I connect through an AOL dialup account to an FPS gaming platform, you really, *really* shouldn't be adding 300ms of latency to everybody else on that server, just to be fair to me.
I mean, sure, it's *fair*--but it also makes the game far less playable for everyone else, and they'd be completely right to stop paying for the service and move over to a different platform that doesn't hobble their game playing any time someone on a slow connection joins the game. ^_^;;
Matt
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 1:30 PM Matt Hoppes < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Correct - but with a server based model you can look at the lag to the worst clients and add lag to the other clients so everyone has a level playing field.
-- Matt Erculiani ERCUL-ARIN
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 21:33:56 -0400, Daniel Sterling said:
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
The Playstation 4's OS actually does support IPV6. I've been told that the big hold-up is that the kits sent to developers had libraries that didn't include the IPv6 sockets support, so no getaddrinfo() and friends, so developers couldn't code the support. Does anybody have info from Microsoft or Sony on what their new consoles are doing regarding IPv6? My informant has moved on and is out of the loop regarding the PS5's software innards.
Once upon a time, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> said:
Does anybody have info from Microsoft or Sony on what their new consoles are doing regarding IPv6? My informant has moved on and is out of the loop regarding the PS5's software innards.
The Xbox One supports IPv6, and I believe it did so at launch 7 years ago. I expect that back-compat Xbox 360 games don't get the IPv6 support, but I've never checked myself. I'd assume that since the 7-year-old console supports IPv6, the launching-in-6-weeks console will too. -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
On 9/27/20 18:33, Daniel Sterling wrote:
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
Xbox Live does support IPv6, and on my Xbox One X it does say it's successfully using IPv6. I haven't sniffed the traffic to see what it's actually doing though. PSN does not support IPv6.
Your VoIP and Video systems are all getting paid rather well to provide Rendezvous hosts that are capable of forwarding ALL traffic and are not all that sensitive to the additional latency involved in doing so. From some perspectives, this is even considered desirable as it simplifies the process of so-called lawful intercept. Games want to go peer-to-peer. The real question IMHO is why are game console companies so stupid about IPv6? Why don’t they push harder for IPv6 rollout and take full advantage of the lack of NAT and the ease with which peer-to-peer networking can be accomplished in IPv6 without hopping through a rendezvous host. Build the games to run native v6 speaking to capable consoles and use rendezvous hosts only where an IPv4 console needs to be reached. Owen
On Sep 27, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Darin Steffl <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?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:47 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Games want to go peer-to-peer.
That was true up until about 2012. As Martijn Schmidt noted, Activison contracts out to multiple managed hosting companies to provide servers across the globe. If you launch any recent call of duty game and hit "multiplayer" , your system will be looking for a managed server host to connect to.
From 2013 and on, all the call of duty games are managed-server-host-only for general multiplayer. You have to go well out of your way to do P2P FPS gaming recently -- at least with CoD. not sure about other games.
The real question IMHO is why are game console companies so stupid about IPv6?
Just a guess, but I imagine since they can't count on users having v6, their hosts have to support v4 and they don't bother making them dual-stack.
From 2013 and on, all the call of duty games are managed-server-host-only for general multiplayer. You have to go well out of your way to do P2P FPS gaming recently -- at least with CoD. not sure about other games.
Based on packet captures and customer experiences, that doesn't seem to be the case. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:42 PM Daniel Sterling <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:47 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Games want to go peer-to-peer.
That was true up until about 2012.
As Martijn Schmidt noted, Activison contracts out to multiple managed hosting companies to provide servers across the globe. If you launch any recent call of duty game and hit "multiplayer" , your system will be looking for a managed server host to connect to.
From 2013 and on, all the call of duty games are managed-server-host-only for general multiplayer. You have to go well out of your way to do P2P FPS gaming recently -- at least with CoD. not sure about other games.
The real question IMHO is why are game console companies so stupid about IPv6?
Just a guess, but I imagine since they can't count on users having v6, their hosts have to support v4 and they don't bother making them dual-stack.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
Based on packet captures and customer experiences, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Aye, you're right I'm sure. Thank you for the correction. Where P2P does NOT come into play is: 1. on xbox 2. standard multiplayer 3. CoD games since at least 2013 4. in the US That is, I haven't seen a non-dedicated-server host match in standard multiplayer on xbox since CoD version 2013, and I've been looking. That's just one datapoint from one user, but I haven't played on a non-dedicated server since 2013 in xbox standard multiplayer. P2P DOES come into play: 1. on PC 2. non-standard multiplayer (custom games) on any platform probably 3. maybe on xbox if you're not near any dedicated server. unsure on this So yes it would seem to make sense for CoD to use ipv6 for those P2P games. But then -- would they have to implement dual-stack for the game on your PC? That seems even more complex than dual-stack on a hosted server -- Dan
If you write your code on <platform> to be IPv6 compliant, making the code support dual stack is a matter of making sure that the IPv6_V6ONLY socket option is false. Owen
On Sep 30, 2020, at 12:03 , Daniel Sterling <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
Based on packet captures and customer experiences, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Aye, you're right I'm sure. Thank you for the correction.
Where P2P does NOT come into play is: 1. on xbox 2. standard multiplayer 3. CoD games since at least 2013 4. in the US
That is, I haven't seen a non-dedicated-server host match in standard multiplayer on xbox since CoD version 2013, and I've been looking. That's just one datapoint from one user, but I haven't played on a non-dedicated server since 2013 in xbox standard multiplayer.
P2P DOES come into play: 1. on PC 2. non-standard multiplayer (custom games) on any platform probably 3. maybe on xbox if you're not near any dedicated server. unsure on this
So yes it would seem to make sense for CoD to use ipv6 for those P2P games. But then -- would they have to implement dual-stack for the game on your PC? That seems even more complex than dual-stack on a hosted server
-- Dan
On Sep 30, 2020, at 11:41 , Daniel Sterling <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:47 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Games want to go peer-to-peer.
That was true up until about 2012.
As Martijn Schmidt noted, Activison contracts out to multiple managed hosting companies to provide servers across the globe. If you launch any recent call of duty game and hit "multiplayer" , your system will be looking for a managed server host to connect to.
Sure, but… Mostly they want to use that managed server to get pointed to other players and form up a game… Once they launch the actual game, most games move as much of the inter-player traffic to peer-to-peer. Exceptions include MMORPG and similar where the model just isn’t suited to peer-to-peer anyway.
From 2013 and on, all the call of duty games are managed-server-host-only for general multiplayer. You have to go well out of your way to do P2P FPS gaming recently -- at least with CoD. not sure about other games.
CoD if it truly operates that way is more an exception than the rule. Most of the FPS, racing, simulation, etc. games I’m aware of use rendezvous servers for meetup/indexing and (in some cases) as a last resort when peer to peer doesn’t work for whatever reason.
The real question IMHO is why are game console companies so stupid about IPv6?
Just a guess, but I imagine since they can't count on users having v6, their hosts have to support v4 and they don't bother making them dual-stack.
Yeah, not entirely true. X-Box one had a clever solution for this. (It’s so uncomfortable for me to be holding Micr0$0ft out as a good example here). If you had v6, great, use it. If you didn’t have v6, then the v4 support was some form of IPv6 tunnel to their server and the game portion still ran native IPv6. Since most game packets are very very small (otoo 64 octets or so and almost never more than 512 octets), PMTU and tunnel overhead is usually not a problem. I thought this model was awesome because it meant that there was an actual consumer advantage to having IPv6 and as word got out, it would provide incentive for ISPs to provide it and for consumers to upgrade their CPE to support it. Somewhat surprised other consoles didn’t emulate this. Owen
❦ 30 septembre 2020 09:45 -07, Owen DeLong:
Games want to go peer-to-peer.
Not sure about that. To avoid cheaters, multiplayer games are likely to be mediated by a server running the same game engine to manage state of each player. -- Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid. -- Mark Twain
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 3:09 PM Vincent Bernat <bernat@luffy.cx> wrote:
Not sure about that. To avoid cheaters, multiplayer games are likely to be mediated by a server running the same game engine to manage state of each player.
Probably veering off topic for the list here, but yes -- the advantage to playing on an xbox is Microsoft has Locked Down the system, so you encounter essentially no cheaters if you're connected to Microsoft's multiplayer service (xbox live) and using dedicated FPS hosts. MS seems to have successfully locked down xbox enough so that no one has figured out a way to get on xbox live with a "hacked" xbox (one running non-MS code). or if they have, that's a big enough zero day they're keeping it to themselves. Having a locked down system that prevents cheaters is a big plus for CoD, which otherwise is indeed rife with "hacked lobbies" and even PCs running hacked clients that connect to and successfully mess up the state of a managed dedicated Activision server.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 10:52 AM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
I’m curious if anyone here knows why gaming consoles are so stupid when it comes to IPv4?
They're trying to give your salesmen an opportunity to upsell. "Oh you have an Z-Console? Those need a gaming enhanced IP address which we'll happily sell you for an extra $5/month. You have three Z-Consoles? At the same time? We gotcha covered!" Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
not just how it handles IPv4 - these things don't even do proper WiFi - meaning no happy joy for lots of students on campus where 802.1X wifi is provisioned alan
participants (22)
-
Alan Buxey -
Carlos M. Martinez -
Chris Adams -
Daniel Sterling -
Darin Steffl -
info＠ddostest.me -
Jared Mauch -
Jeremy Bresley -
Josh Luthman -
Justin Wilson (Lists) -
Martijn Schmidt -
Matt Erculiani -
Matt Hoppes -
Matthew Petach -
Mike Hammett -
Owen DeLong -
Scott Morizot -
Seth Mattinen -
Tom Beecher -
Valdis Klētnieks -
Vincent Bernat -
William Herrin