How important is NAT Negotiation to server hosters?

[Patrickollo 3]

Will either of these two implementations have any effect on the players themselves? Example: will I have to fiddle with my ports to join certain servers?

In my experience, usually only the host has to open ports and all that jazz, but with the Hive server.. not sure. If I have to have access to my ports as a player, I'm screwed and can't play this game (damn I really want to move out of my apartment).

Edited because I said "all that jazz" twice. Embarrassing.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Patrickollo

[rekrul 91]

No, this would be for server admins only. Regardless of the solution, the players doesn't have to do anything different than they do today.

[zyfer.nyholm@gmail.com 131]

Rocket please dont go rockstar style, i mean, ive bought their gta IV and their Max Payne and it is impossible for so many people to actually join or find a server, i do know the issue is on rockstars side, i dont have to make my router or anything SO public (i feel like leaving the key in to the door of my house)

I wouldnt say gamespy is causing issues with the servers to be honest, ofcourse i dont know how it is on your end but atm it is easy as 1.2.3 to join a server, no kick and no ping issues, using any game that supports this NAT has always given me issues and i remember that one of the apartments i was living in i wasnt able to change this because the damn ISP didnt want to give me the pass and username for my "box" (fiberoptic)

Then again this is my opinion and i can only say that i have had so many issues with this NAT that i gave up playing multiplayer in these 2 games or any games from rockstar who is the only ones i know who use this.

[ODoyleRulez 195]

No Gamespy. Worst garbage ever.

[kemherar 0]

Sadly, my post here won't add much value to the question ask.

I consider myself a network noob. even though i'd like to learn more. So posting here as a common gamer.

All i can ask about the server system and connection is to make it clear either if port forwarding or something else is necessary. I do know how to forward port, but i don't really use this function because i don't know what it can bring to my game experience.

[Freeborne (DayZ) 7]

NAT is not crucial IMHO.

Real dedicated servers will have a public IP. Requiring this may seem a barrier of entry to hosting DayZ, but maybe that's a good thing.

IP6 is growing in use too and NAT will be a thing of the past.

Not sure lots of home based servers will help or hurt DayZ. Probably do more harm then good if run by admins that don't understand port forwarding or can't afford a public IP, possibly because they can't get one on their cheap dodgy consumer broadband.

[Allie (DayZ) 97]

If one is not able to open up port, you think onee will be able to host/maintain a server ?

[Physicaque 0]

I take it then you plan on having most of the servers hosted by the community. I would prefer if you hosted the servers yourselves, though I understand that developing such an infrastructure is not easy, cheap nor quick.

[ProNairam 0]

Question what specific date in november or decmeber will it be released? (By the way i will be getting it as soon as it comes out!)

[quatermass 9]

My personal view is if they're playing at hosting their own servers behind NAT then they need to learn that port forwarding is the best way to do this.

It's a technical thing setting up your own server, not for the faint hearted, port forwarding is such a small thing compared with setting up a SQL Db and maintaining it! :)

Most serious Gamers will know how to port forward already and having an extra tool to perform NAT Negotiation will have problems as no doubt not every router ever made will have implemented it correctly.

[Timberwolf (DayZ) 118]

I take it then you plan on having most of the servers hosted by the community. I would prefer if you hosted the servers yourselves, though I understand that developing such an infrastructure is not easy, cheap nor quick.

I agree with this but I think it's actually impossible for them to get and manage all the servers needed for that just by themselves. It would however be much better since there would be the clusterfuck of different server configurations and types that there are now.

[domistyle 221]

Most people are hosting DayZ servers on dedicated servers or managed servers so there is no real need for NAT negotation.

And if not they can use Hamachi or just port forward.

I would prefer a more stable server as well as Linux support over NAT negotation. ;)

Edited October 27, 2012 by DomiStyle

[pulseh 0]

NAT negotiation is certainly not a required feature. Especially if the team could be working on other aspects of the game. Port forwarding guides are common enough for the minority that choose to host servers behind a router at home.

[soppa 39]

Servers running services (gameservers) shound never ever use any NAT technologies.

Therefore any server should NOT support this kind of technique which only causes issues and latency.

[magmatrix 38]

[snip]... the main issue would be that not providing such negotiation would mean that port forwarding would be required. [snip]

I fail to see how that is even an issue... most ppl running any kind of server are already used to setting up port forwarding (unless the server supports UPnP).

Protip: Just forget about NAT negotiation and focus on the game.

[GeneralMelchett 35]

I think port-forwarding is a non-issue for most hosters, since they host their server co-located or rent them at a company that has their servers co-located and co-location comes with a small public network (usually /29). But... this is the situation here in the Netherlands and probably also in the US, but what about other parts of the world where they are running out of IPv4 address-space? I could imagine a co-location provider in Asia would only provide a /30 network which pretty much forces you to use NAT if you have more then one servers...

Imho:

- NAT negotiation is no issue at this moment since there are still plenty of IPv4 addresses availible and co-locators are not forced by datacenters to use one public IP.

- In the future, NAT negotiation will be out of the question since we will have plenty of IPv6 space.

So, if this whole NAT negotiation takes too much effort: forget about it. :)

Edited October 29, 2012 by GeneralMelchett

[jackwhitter 22]

We have had no end of problems with the gamespy nat negotiation attempts and people connecting to our server, which is hosted behind a cisco ASA firewall with all the proper ports forwarded, but the strange ways in which gamespy negotiates nats just dies at the firewall. smaller than normal icmp packets, etc. very frustrating.

if you are running are server for public use, then you need to have a service capable of giving you a public IP (or at least the ports necessary).

if you want to run a private server on your home connection for some buddies, forward your ports in your firewall or use a VPN service.

make gamespy go away!

[HMS 115]

Yes, absolutely. No question about it - "No" shouldn't even be an option in the poll.

[james222 49]

What idiot runs a server behind a NAT.

[ominouspenguin 10]

Yes, absolutely. No question about it - "No" shouldn't even be an option in the poll.

Err.. could you explain your answer please? Are you planning to host a server behind NAT and don't know how to forward ports?

[Zak_Prestor 15]

I have a Hyper-V server with 2 virtual machines that deal with 3-5 server both. The best solution for me was to create a virtual switch and assign it as a gateway for guest OS.

We really (REALLY) need a native NAT support! I perfectly know how to map ports or ranges, but NAT is a better solution for those who don't know how to handle their firewall.

[ominouspenguin 10]

Do you think it would be reasonable to assume that "those who don't know how to handle their firewall" would be home users and thus their router would probably be one that supported UPnP port forwarding?

What do people think of UPnP forwarding? Would it be a good idea to implement it in the server?

[rekrul 91]

UPnP certainly seems more robust than the NAT negotiation from GS and it's a mature standard now, at least when it comes to port forwarding. I have no idea how easy it is to implement in the netcode though.

[ominouspenguin 10]

I have no idea how easy it is to implement in the netcode though.

It wouldn't be part of the netcode. Anyway it's very easy to implement - it just involves a bit of XML over HTTP.

[venthos 605]

Whew. I held my breath when I clicked "Show Results", and my faith in humanity has remained since the majority have thus far voted to say "bollocks to NAT". As someone who has been in the hosting industry for nearly a decade, including running a datacenter floor for several of those years, NAT is absolute garbage and anyone who is anywhere near serious about hosting anything would steer clear of that nonsense. It's often used in the absence of proper security with the belief that it somehow is intended for security/firewall behavior as well and not just... well... NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Any proper server is going to have assigned public static IPs... not NAT. Home users and and "Cloud" servers are the only real users of NAT, and I wouldn't want a DayZ Standalone server hosted on either of them.

I know people will pop up with that whole "Cloud" markety buzz word nonsense and how that heavily relies upon NAT (wouldn't touch one of those servers with a 10 foot pole). But, thankfully, that whole fad is starting to see its peak and start heading downward. My hope for humanity is that IPv6 kills off virtually all existing uses of NAT. Wouldn't that be amazing *dreamy eyes*.

But, yes, good news to see the poll is headed the way it should be :D