• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wooh

Why use both public and private endpoints when establishing peer-to-peer sessions?

5 posts in this topic

I read about establishing peer-to-peer sessions but what I don't understand is why the clients should try to send using both the public and private endpoints. If A and B has the same public IP isn't it always best to use the private endpoints and otherwise always use the public endpoints?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the following scenario:

 

client A at local network 192.168.1.1:8080

client B at same local network 192.168.1.2:8080

behind global NAT 2.2.2.2

and

server at global network 1.1.1.1:9000

 

now A and B send requests to server and getting the following public endpoint:

client A: 2.2.2.2:9000

client B: 2.2.2.2:9001

 

The problem is, if client A tries to contact client B by 2.2.2.2:9001 it would send a message through the router to itself, which will most likely not work. In this case it just needs to use its local (aka private) endpoint (192.168.1.2:8080) to contact it. Therefor you send requests to both, private (if behind the same NAT) and public (if behind other NAT).

Edited by Ashaman73
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you say. What I don't get is why A don't compare the public endpoints of A and B and if they have the same IP use the private endpoint to contact B, otherwise use the public endpoint to contact B.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is totally possible, and sometimes preferrable, for A to talk to B using the private IP address. The main problem is establishing that A and B are, in fact, both on the same private network. If their public IP is the same, then that's a good clue.

In fact, certain NAT gateways don't support "hairpin NAT" -- if A tries to talk to B using the B public IP/port, the router just drops the packet, rather than properly forwarding and re--re-writing it. Thus, you may *have* to support the direct mode for these kinds of clients if you want a very robust NAT traversal solution.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why A don't compare the public endpoints of A and B and if they have the same IP use the private endpoint to contact B

The client do not know its own public endpoint, only the server know it. Either the server would check if two clients have the same public endpoint and send therefor only the private endpoint to the client, or the server sends the clients public endpoint to the client itself. But all this is more complex and very theoretically, just testing if one of the two possible endpoints works is more practically.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's an excellent question. There is no reason to probe both, and given that internal networks share a common address space, I'd say it is bad form.

 

NAT tunneling is mediated by the Matchmaker anyway. Have each client report its internal IP address and port when it contacts the Matchmaker. When coordinating matches, if the external IP is the same, the Matchmaker returns the external IP/Port that it determined for the parties, otherwise it returns the internal version. No additional information is sent, and no duplicate connecting is needed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0