4 ms·

Honestly the games issue might be out of day. Game devs have access to great services to punch through NAT at this point. Tech finds a way…

by rao-v 10mo ago

coryrc 10mo ago
Which has led to every game needing a central server running, forcing centralization where p2p used to work great. Also how Skype was able to scale on a budget, something now blocked, forcing you to raise money for more ideas than before. Running a matrix(?) node should be as simple as clicking install and it's just there, next time you're with your friends, nfc tap or whatever and your servers talk to each other directly forever going forward. But nope, there always is a gatekeeper now and they need money and that poisons everything.
- everforward 10mo ago
  I don’t think VOIP was a major factor in game centralization. The big one was selling cosmetics (easily unlock able server-side in community servers), and to some extent being able to police voice chat more. Major game publishers didn’t want to be in the news about the game with the most slurs or child grooming or what not.
- chongli 10mo ago
  Central servers are useful for more than just NAT hole-punching. They’re also great as a centralized database of records and statistics as well as a host for anti-cheating services and community standards enforcement. Peer to Peer games with no central authority would be so rife with cheating that you’d only ever want to play with friends, not strangers. That sucks!
  - throw0101a 10mo ago
    > Peer to Peer games with no central authority would be so rife with cheating that you’d only ever want to play with friends, not strangers. That sucks! Back in the the day RtCW had a server anyone could run and you could give out the address: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Castle_Wolfenstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Castle_Wolfenstein There was a server that a ISP / cable company in the southern US ran that I participate in and it was a great community with many regulars. P2P can be awesome with the right peers.
    - chongli 10mo ago
      If you can run your own server then that's still a central server. That still lets a community of people work with a central authority. It's just a different authority from the game's publisher.
      - Capricorn2481 10mo ago
        In that sense, Mastodon is a centralized service because it's on someone's computer. That's not really what people mean by central. They mean we're increasingly reliant on game companies for networking infrastructure. Is that all IPV4s fault? I don't think so. But it complicates things
        chongli 10mo ago
        I think you're muddling things up more than they need to be. A peer-to-peer game is one in which players connect directly to each other but neither is the host and there is no dedicated server. Game state is maintained separately on each player's computer and kept in sync by the netcode. Since there is no single source of truth for the game-state, so players are free to cheat by modifying the game's code to lie on their behalf. There is also the side issue of bugs in the game code causing the game-states to become irreparably desynchronized. All of these issues are solved by having a central server for both players to connect to. Whether that server is owned by the game's publisher or by an open-source community is irrelevant from a technology standpoint. However, the prevalence of IPv4 networks and stateful NAT firewalls is relevant because it privileges those central servers over true peer-to-peer connections.
        Capricorn2481 10mo ago
        I don't disagree with you, I just read your comment as deriding people who think hosting their own game servers is meaningful, because it's similar to a company server. Sounds like you didn't mean it that way.
      - coryrc 10mo ago
  - patmorgan23 10mo ago
    Cool. You decided you don't care about that, but what if I do?
    - chongli 10mo ago
      Don't put words into my mouth! I never said I didn't care about peer to peer networking and peer to peer gaming. I said it sucks if your only option to avoid cheating is to play with friends. If you only care about gaming with friends, then peer to peer is an excellent way to do that (assuming the game doesn't have any synchronization issues, which some peer to peer games do).
reincarnate0x14 10mo ago
So we acknowledge v4 and CG-NAT are a problem but don't want to use the already available solution because game developers took it upon themselves to DEFEAT NAT :) That just reminded me of a peer protocol I worked on a long time ago that used other hosts to try to figure out which hosts were getting translated. Kind of like a reverse TOR. If that was detected, the better peering hosts would send them each other's local and public addresses so they could start sending UDP packets to each other, because the NAT devices wouldn't expect the TCP handshake first and so while the first few rounds didn't make it through, it caused the NAT device(s) to create the table entries for itself. Was it Hamachi that was the old IPX-over-IP tunneling? I'm fairly sure it used similar tricks. IPX-over-IP is also done on DOSBOX, which incidentally made it possible to play Master of Orion 2 with friends in other continents.
- pix128 10mo ago
  I can spin up a NAT puncher today without having to depend on anybody. Can't say the same for IPv6.
- lmz 10mo ago
  > That just reminded me of a peer protocol I worked on a long time ago that used other hosts to try to figure out which hosts were getting translated. Kind of like a reverse TOR. If that was detected, the better peering hosts would send them each other's local and public addresses so they could start sending UDP packets to each other, Sounds similar to STUN, really.
  - reincarnate0x14 10mo ago
    If that's the VOIP thing, yes, lots of people came to similar methods. That particular thing was for exchanging state, not VOIP or tunneling, so as long as participant groups overlapped it didn't really need a fixed server to be the middle which was handy for our purposes, although long network interruptions could make reconvergence take a while. Does make me chuckle that so many people had to be working around NAT for so long and then people are like "NAT is way better than the thing that makes us not have to deal with the problem at all." Just had a bit of NAT PTSD remembering an unrelated, but livid argument between some network teams about how a tool defeating their NAT policies was malware. They had overlapping 10.x.y.z blocks, because of course they did :)
viraptor 10mo ago
Nat hole punching works... most of the time. There are many edge cases and weird/broken networks which you just can't work around in standard ways. You get to see all kinds of broken setups if you work at VoIP providers. That's why everyone will use a central proxy server as the last resource - you'll mostly notice it only because of a higher ping.

Honestly the games issue might be out of day. Game devs have access to great services to punch through NAT at this point. Tech finds a way…

by rao-v 10mo ago

Honestly the games issue might be out of day. Game devs have access to great services to punch through NAT at this point. Tech finds a way…

coryrc 10mo ago

Which has led to every game needing a central server running, forcing centralization where p2p used to work great. Also how Skype was able to scale on a budget, something now blocked, forcing you to raise money for more ideas than before. Running a matrix(?) node should be as simple as clicking install and it's just there, next time you're with your friends, nfc tap or whatever and your servers talk to each other directly forever going forward. But nope, there always is a gatekeeper now and they need money and that poisons everything.

everforward 10mo ago
I don’t think VOIP was a major factor in game centralization. The big one was selling cosmetics (easily unlock able server-side in community servers), and to some extent being able to police voice chat more. Major game publishers didn’t want to be in the news about the game with the most slurs or child grooming or what not.
chongli 10mo ago
Central servers are useful for more than just NAT hole-punching. They’re also great as a centralized database of records and statistics as well as a host for anti-cheating services and community standards enforcement. Peer to Peer games with no central authority would be so rife with cheating that you’d only ever want to play with friends, not strangers. That sucks!
- throw0101a 10mo ago
  > Peer to Peer games with no central authority would be so rife with cheating that you’d only ever want to play with friends, not strangers. That sucks! Back in the the day RtCW had a server anyone could run and you could give out the address: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Castle_Wolfenstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Castle_Wolfenstein There was a server that a ISP / cable company in the southern US ran that I participate in and it was a great community with many regulars. P2P can be awesome with the right peers.
  - chongli 10mo ago
    If you can run your own server then that's still a central server. That still lets a community of people work with a central authority. It's just a different authority from the game's publisher.
    - Capricorn2481 10mo ago
      In that sense, Mastodon is a centralized service because it's on someone's computer. That's not really what people mean by central. They mean we're increasingly reliant on game companies for networking infrastructure. Is that all IPV4s fault? I don't think so. But it complicates things
      - chongli 10mo ago
        I think you're muddling things up more than they need to be. A peer-to-peer game is one in which players connect directly to each other but neither is the host and there is no dedicated server. Game state is maintained separately on each player's computer and kept in sync by the netcode. Since there is no single source of truth for the game-state, so players are free to cheat by modifying the game's code to lie on their behalf. There is also the side issue of bugs in the game code causing the game-states to become irreparably desynchronized. All of these issues are solved by having a central server for both players to connect to. Whether that server is owned by the game's publisher or by an open-source community is irrelevant from a technology standpoint. However, the prevalence of IPv4 networks and stateful NAT firewalls is relevant because it privileges those central servers over true peer-to-peer connections.
        Capricorn2481 10mo ago
        I don't disagree with you, I just read your comment as deriding people who think hosting their own game servers is meaningful, because it's similar to a company server. Sounds like you didn't mean it that way.
    - coryrc 10mo ago
- patmorgan23 10mo ago
  Cool. You decided you don't care about that, but what if I do?
  - chongli 10mo ago
    Don't put words into my mouth! I never said I didn't care about peer to peer networking and peer to peer gaming. I said it sucks if your only option to avoid cheating is to play with friends. If you only care about gaming with friends, then peer to peer is an excellent way to do that (assuming the game doesn't have any synchronization issues, which some peer to peer games do).

reincarnate0x14 10mo ago

So we acknowledge v4 and CG-NAT are a problem but don't want to use the already available solution because game developers took it upon themselves to DEFEAT NAT :) That just reminded me of a peer protocol I worked on a long time ago that used other hosts to try to figure out which hosts were getting translated. Kind of like a reverse TOR. If that was detected, the better peering hosts would send them each other's local and public addresses so they could start sending UDP packets to each other, because the NAT devices wouldn't expect the TCP handshake first and so while the first few rounds didn't make it through, it caused the NAT device(s) to create the table entries for itself. Was it Hamachi that was the old IPX-over-IP tunneling? I'm fairly sure it used similar tricks. IPX-over-IP is also done on DOSBOX, which incidentally made it possible to play Master of Orion 2 with friends in other continents.

pix128 10mo ago
I can spin up a NAT puncher today without having to depend on anybody. Can't say the same for IPv6.
lmz 10mo ago
> That just reminded me of a peer protocol I worked on a long time ago that used other hosts to try to figure out which hosts were getting translated. Kind of like a reverse TOR. If that was detected, the better peering hosts would send them each other's local and public addresses so they could start sending UDP packets to each other, Sounds similar to STUN, really.
- reincarnate0x14 10mo ago
  If that's the VOIP thing, yes, lots of people came to similar methods. That particular thing was for exchanging state, not VOIP or tunneling, so as long as participant groups overlapped it didn't really need a fixed server to be the middle which was handy for our purposes, although long network interruptions could make reconvergence take a while. Does make me chuckle that so many people had to be working around NAT for so long and then people are like "NAT is way better than the thing that makes us not have to deal with the problem at all." Just had a bit of NAT PTSD remembering an unrelated, but livid argument between some network teams about how a tool defeating their NAT policies was malware. They had overlapping 10.x.y.z blocks, because of course they did :)

viraptor 10mo ago

Nat hole punching works... most of the time. There are many edge cases and weird/broken networks which you just can't work around in standard ways. You get to see all kinds of broken setups if you work at VoIP providers. That's why everyone will use a central proxy server as the last resource - you'll mostly notice it only because of a higher ping.