3 ms·

If you want to hypothesize a world where we’re all on IPv6 and thus game matchmaking software can take advantage of the unique addresses for every console, you

If you want to hypothesize a world where we’re all on IPv6 and thus game matchmaking software can take advantage of the unique addresses for every console, you should also admit that the same software could also just use a unique port for each console today, in IPv4+NAT. In fact, in IPv6, privacy addresses mean that the address the gaming service observes from my device shouldn’t be assumed to work for other peers, because my device may only be using that address for communication to the gaming service itself. Instead, authors of this software ought to understand that the console itself needs to tell the service “this is the address peers can use to communicate with me”, and thus you may as well just include the port in that call, and then you don’t need to assume port 5000 will work (because if I have 2 XBox’s, they could decide on a different port if another console already has one used.) It’s just I’m disillusioned with the idea of GUA’s for every device actually solving anything. It solves like 10% of the difficulty of writing good p2p software. All the other problems are still there: firewall config, dynamic IP’s, mobile IP’s, security best practices, shitty middleware boxes not doing the right thing, etc etc etc.

vel0city 2y ago
My biggest argument would be CGNAT in the end really doesn't care what UPnP you do at the edge of your network; you're not getting that traffic no matter what you do. IPv6 means there's no reason to have CGNAT at all; there's more than enough addresses to go around. Does IPv6 solve it all? No. Does it solve some of it better than IPv4? Yep. Does it just completely eliminate the need for CGNAT? Yep. It is not a silver bullet to solve all problems, but it does solve some, and for that I'd much rather use it. Because I'd rather just be able to host whatever at home and not need to remember what port is what or rely on proxies looking at other info in the request. > shitty middleware boxes not doing the right thing You reduce the need for shitty middleware boxes. I don't need a reverse proxy. I don't need to have a STUN/TURN server. I don't need to randomize ports or worry about running out of ports.
lmm 2y ago
> the same software could also just use a unique port for each console today, in IPv4+NAT. Why solve a problem once properly in the network stack when you can add an ad-hoc workaround to each individual protocol instead? > the console itself needs to tell the service “this is the address peers can use to communicate with me”, and thus you may as well just include the port in that call, and then you don’t need to assume port 5000 will work And if you're behind CGNAT so your home router doesn't know what the address and port are, what then? Not to mention the case of a multiplayer game between two people who live in the same house and a third person who doesn't. That's one that's trivial with IPv6 but difficult with every IPv4-based system I've seen. > It solves like 10% of the difficulty of writing good p2p software. All the other problems are still there It all helps. I mean, people mostly manage to play games with each other today, they just get disconnects or random lag every so often. Cutting down on that, even if it was only 10%, would make a lot of lives better.

vel0city 2y ago

My biggest argument would be CGNAT in the end really doesn't care what UPnP you do at the edge of your network; you're not getting that traffic no matter what you do. IPv6 means there's no reason to have CGNAT at all; there's more than enough addresses to go around. Does IPv6 solve it all? No. Does it solve some of it better than IPv4? Yep. Does it just completely eliminate the need for CGNAT? Yep. It is not a silver bullet to solve all problems, but it does solve some, and for that I'd much rather use it. Because I'd rather just be able to host whatever at home and not need to remember what port is what or rely on proxies looking at other info in the request. > shitty middleware boxes not doing the right thing You reduce the need for shitty middleware boxes. I don't need a reverse proxy. I don't need to have a STUN/TURN server. I don't need to randomize ports or worry about running out of ports.

lmm 2y ago

> the same software could also just use a unique port for each console today, in IPv4+NAT. Why solve a problem once properly in the network stack when you can add an ad-hoc workaround to each individual protocol instead? > the console itself needs to tell the service “this is the address peers can use to communicate with me”, and thus you may as well just include the port in that call, and then you don’t need to assume port 5000 will work And if you're behind CGNAT so your home router doesn't know what the address and port are, what then? Not to mention the case of a multiplayer game between two people who live in the same house and a third person who doesn't. That's one that's trivial with IPv6 but difficult with every IPv4-based system I've seen. > It solves like 10% of the difficulty of writing good p2p software. All the other problems are still there It all helps. I mean, people mostly manage to play games with each other today, they just get disconnects or random lag every so often. Cutting down on that, even if it was only 10%, would make a lot of lives better.