Port Forwarding
-
That’s not true. Only static mappings work where src port is preserved through NAT. This is very uncommon. It’s been discussed some time back but apparently @mrivers has a different idea of TCP/IP…
I believe you’re misinformed. Source ports may be renumbered. In fact, I’ve found that there are lots of NAT implementations that won’t preserve the source port (outbound) even when you define a port-forwarding rule (inbound).
When setting up the connections, the server notes the actual source port of a client (what NAT made of it), and the source port that client “thinks” it uses (the port used by the PC running BMS behind the NAT). The server sends both ports to the clients that are already connected, and these clients subsequently try to connect to the new client using both these ports. Also the other way around, so the new client receives two ports of all the existing clients and tries to connect the other way around. This gives a total of 4 chances to connect each pair of clients. Unfortunately, as I said before, it won’t work for all NAT implementations.
-
No, you misread. It’s dubious=0 that prevents non-static mappings to work. As said, @mrivers has a problem with non-static mappings. Or something.
-
No, you misread. It’s dubious=0 that prevents non-static mappings to work. As said, @mrivers has a problem with non-static mappings. Or something.
I don’t see where I should have read that you meant the situation where dubious=0. That’s non-standard. But you are right: with that switch set, the source port must be unaltered. It’s a crude way to enforce all clients behave “nicely”. Too crude, that’s why it’s off by default IMHO.
-
Any why people with limited network knowledge shouldn’t enable it…
-
kinda a shame for those of us stuck behind university routers and no port forwarding available…
-
kinda a shame for those of us stuck behind university routers and no port forwarding available…
And kinda a shame for those that have MP missions gone buzinca cause of users behind university routers and no port forwarding available…
what do u prefer? a mission that can go bad and not realize it or a rock solid mission MP data wise???
I have flawn missions with my squad that some members refuse to comply with blocking dubious connections, so it’s a party on ports connections disconnections, a mad house, and they all think that everything was perfect… but if u look at the details… the mission was a joke and spoiled the fun for me… I thought what a waste of time those 2+ hours…
Sure u can’t have the perfect result cause maybe your ISP cause u problems but those are few… most (for me and my experience on the subject) are bad lines… with noise and low upload speeds at some points during the mission, port forwarding, Software firewalls wrongly set up, users doing changes on their systems and forget to re do changes for BMS MP stability, like reinstall and forget to check firewall, or change their network card IP and leaving the old IP on the router port forward…
If u have many participants surely someone will forget or have something wrong… with blocking dubious connections u have them blocked from spoiling the fun of others and u can quickly spot the problematic member and help him out.
-
-
or not, as in the above case.
Well not… if the member has no portforward or wrong the server will not let him connect.
So which case do u refer to?
Finally the server admin can have -mono parameter and see that a member is trying to connect on a wrong port also he can see and his IP…
So this is quicker… stops the problem before birth… -
Well not… if the member has no portforward or wrong the server will not let him connect.
So which case do u refer to?
Finally the server admin can have -mono parameter and see that a member is trying to connect on a wrong port also he can see and his IP…
So this is quicker… stops the problem before birth…you can spot him, for sure, but you cannot help him out…
-
kinda a shame for those of us stuck behind university routers and no port forwarding available…
With dubious connections disallowed, you’re screwed. Without it, you are able to reliably MP with one friend (him being the server), and even reliably MP with a larger party, as long as you are the only one that’s “unreachable”. If everybody else has his ports opened up, you’ll be able to establish peer-to-peer connections with them. One more client like you, and “routing through host” will be necessary between the two of you.
-
you can spot him, for sure, but you cannot help him out…
why not?
If his hw problems are unfixable then he knows that he can’t enjoy 100% and he must let others enjoy it and try to find a solution. In his quest he can be guided to a perfect solution.
If his problems are fixable then a teammate can guide him or do the changes for him like with teamviewer etc… -
why not?
If his hw problems are unfixable then he knows that he can’t enjoy 100% and he must let others enjoy it and try to find a solution. In his quest he can be guided to a perfect solution.
If his problems are fixable then a teammate can guide him or do the changes for him like with teamviewer etc…what even is this “if”? its polar. either you can port forward or you cannot, there is no sometimes or somewhat involved.
-
Guys, please recognize that you have different views on allowing dubious connections.
Arty likes the option, I assume because he regularly uses it with friends who have their ports nicely forwarded, and restricting the connections to source port 2935 tells him immediately when something screwed up with one of the connections. That client won’t be able to connect, he investigates, solves the problem (it worked before), and he can be certain the mesh network will be complete again.
Blu3wolf dislikes it, because he is located behind a router over which he has no control, and as a consequence, he will never be able to jotin a server that disallows dubious connections. However, I believe not many people use this option (dubious clients are allowed by default), so he will be able to join most servers. Unfortunately, when there are other clients with non-optimal configured routers, the data between them will be routed through the host, causing some lag and bandwidth (at the server side).
AllowDubiousConnections has pros and cons, that’s why it’s optional.
-
well I understand Blu3wolf’s considerations but when an engine is way demanding then u have to comply… For instance for 1-2 years I had ISP problems disconnections and major Portforwarding issues I tried my best to make them look and solve the problem but no luck… so I was away of MP flying solo… When the contract ended (1year) I switched to another ISP hopping all will be ok but nope bad luck again… tried again but after a few months I broke the contract and gone to another ISP and all fine since then… Nowadays things are easier and u can change more easily…
In the meantime guys in my squad where flying… but I was sure that they had many many problems… When I rejoined them I was glad (and sad on the same time for them) cause I found out that they had major problems… for them was ok but for me it’s pointless to fly missions where data are fubared and the outcome is flip flop… U r allways with the question… was an error on my side… was the server? is he really that good should I do the same? and so on and so forth…When I returned back I was immediately assigned to investigate the problems and errors. When we enabled dubious block everything was sweet… when we disabled it buzinca came back… so u see the point…
It’s just what u expect and demand from the experience… For me when data are fubared u go arcade… when data are ok then it’s sim. Also I believe this is and one of the reasons BMS team changed the MP code…
-
I understand your point of view. However, it was and still is possible to have a reliable MP experience without everybody using source port 2935. In that sense, allowdubiousconnections is too strict. Also, the routing through host feature didn’t work as it should previously. This has been repaired (not sure which release, update 5 or 6 IIRC). So yes, disallowing dubious connections guarantees a good MP experience, but may end up locking out clients that could participate perfectly fine.
For instance, there are routers with a NAT implementation that will forward 2934 and 2935 if set up that way, but these will still renumber the source ports for outbound traffic. No problem connecting to clients behind such routers, but they won’t pass the allowdubiousconnection test, as their actual source port isn’t 2935 according to the server.
When two clients aren’t able to establish a peer-to-peer connection, you’ll see “routing through host” in their monologs, and in the server’s. So keeping an eye on the server’s monolog for this string will give you a good indication whether the connections are good, or not.
-
One can always establish UDP VPN for the purpose of allowing ports open
-
One can always establish UDP VPN for the purpose of allowing ports open
Never tried that. How would that work? VPN to a software router on the outside? What products could you use for that?
-
Topology
VPN -> falcon-subnet -> falcon-private-ip
connect to falcon private ip in comms.
-
I understand your point of view. However, it was and still is possible to have a reliable MP experience without everybody using source port 2935. In that sense, allowdubiousconnections is too strict. Also, the routing through host feature didn’t work as it should previously. This has been repaired (not sure which release, update 5 or 6 IIRC). So yes, disallowing dubious connections guarantees a good MP experience, but may end up locking out clients that could participate perfectly fine.
For instance, there are routers with a NAT implementation that will forward 2934 and 2935 if set up that way, but these will still renumber the source ports for outbound traffic. No problem connecting to clients behind such routers, but they won’t pass the allowdubiousconnection test, as their actual source port isn’t 2935 according to the server.
When two clients aren’t able to establish a peer-to-peer connection, you’ll see “routing through host” in their monologs, and in the server’s. So keeping an eye on the server’s monolog for this string will give you a good indication whether the connections are good, or not.
Well correct me if I’m wrong but when the port changes maybe a re connection takes place inside racknet? have u seen the log with -mono? What if this takes place in a critical moment and suddenly there is a disturbance in the data flow?
Have a flight of 20+ ppl if 2-4 guys have this during the mission then flip flop??? -
Well correct me if I’m wrong but when the port changes maybe a re connection takes place inside racknet? have u seen the log with -mono? What if this takes place in a critical moment and suddenly there is a disturbance in the data flow?
Have a flight of 20+ ppl if 2-4 guys have this during the mission then flip flop???could I have a specific example where this happened? to clarify, not a mission flop but a port change causing a game crash.