I'm trying to figure out how to make a simple multiplayer game where players don't have to worry about port forwarding and can connect directly to each other without a dedicated server in-between. Manual port forwarding is a hassle for less tech-savvy players and servers cost money.
I've looked at UDP hole-punching but that requires a middleman between the clients, and UPnP from what I understand has security issues and is not supported on all devices.
Is there another way other than what I mentioned - maybe something other than TCP or UDP that I might have overlooked? I want the players experience to be as easy as possible, and not have to worry about server costs myself.
Thanks in advance
Any solution you implement is likely to have the same security implications that UPnP does. NAT as used by your average home router is basically a hack to get around ISPs charging for multiple IP addresses. Since most home users aren't running servers this has worked reasonably well. But as you've discovered, it doesn't allow hosting a game without jumping through some hoops. My recommendation is implement UPnP and document what ports you use for users whose routers lack support.
Related
My knowledge about network programming is limited, so, all the comments are more than welcome. Essentially my question boils down to the following question:
Q1. Is there really such a thing as decentralized asynchronous cross-platform peer-to-peer communication?
Let me explain myself.
If we have two http servers running on computers with actual IP addresses, then clearly the answer is yes, assuming one writes a protocol for the interaction.
To go one step further, if one of them (or both) is (are) behind a router, then, with port forwarding the communication can still be established. However, here the problems start because if someone wants to run such a server on the background, say in a mobile phone, the app that is relying on this server really works when one is at home (we can not really expect to request port forwarding everywhere we go).
But even beyond that,
Q2. do mobile phones obtain an actual IP address from telecommunication companies when someone is not using a wi-fi?
If this is true, then clearly one can have cross-platform asynchronous peer-to-peer communication at the expense of not using wi-fi by running an http server on a smartphone. (I understand that this is not convenient, but it is certainly doable.)
Concluding, the two (perhaps there are more) relevant questions that I can think of are:
Q3. How does Skype really work?
Q4. How does Viber really work?
Based on the answer for Skype, it says: If one of the callee or both of them do not have a public IP, then they send voice traffic to another online Skype node over UDP or TCP.
So, it appears that there is no direct communication in Skype, because they have to use a man-in-the-middle for such a scenario.
Regarding Viber, I could not find a good-thorough answer to this particular question. Do people talk to each other through a Viber centralized server, or, do they establish a direct connection? Of course if they do establish a direct connection, then I really want to know how they manage such a thing since a mobile phone may or may not have a physical address. How is a Viber message routed to my cell phone from a friend of mine even when Viber is not running and I am behind a router?
I guess the answer to Viber is really push notifications, but as far as I can understand, all the variations of push notifications rely on open connections, and then the servers of the applications send the notifications to the clients through such connection(s). So, this approach gives us the feeling that it is asynchronous, but essentially it is not. We are cheating, in the sense that there is a constantly open connection to a server, and moreover, as far as I can understand, the application server has to push the notification through that server. Schematically:
A > Central App Server > Central Server w/ open connection to my cellphone > me
So, this seems to be once again a centralized approach.
Honestly, the only approach that I can think of that is both decentralized and asynchronous (on mobile phones as well) is to run an http server on every platform/device, but this comes at the expense of not using Wi-Fi and assuming that a telecommunication company really assigns a physical IP address to every mobile phone (which I do not know if it is true, do you?).
What about WASTE, darknets, F2Fs, etc? Do they offer advantages in the sense of a more direct asynchronous communication between some interested parties? Are there real-world applications (also including mobile phones) using such approaches for communication.
Really, this is not the actual problem that I would like to work on, but I would like to know what the state of the art is so that I can figure out how I can proceed from there. So, all comments are really more than welcome. If you have references for the state of the art I would like to know about them as well, but a brief description would also be nice.
I appreciate all your time and effort in advance.
You asked many questions, here is the beginning of the answers:
Q1: Yes. For example, take BitTorrent's very successful 10 million+ node network. Aside from the bootstrapping process, the protocol is entirely decentralized and asynchronous. See here for more info.
Q2: Yes! Go to www.whatismyip.com on your mobile telephone, and you will see your assigned IP. However, you are likely to be very filtered (e.g: incoming traffic on port 80 is likely to be blocked).
Q3: It has elements of P2P and clever tricks to get around NAT issues - see here for more info.
Q4: I don't know.
We published the game on russian server and 1% of people couldn't connect to server on 46xx port through raw TCP while they can load it's HTML page (through HTTP). Most of such people live in Germany, Israel....
Why is it so? What's the politics decisions lay behind it? We discovered that their such ports (which are free on IANA) are closed. Does it mean that such people cannot run Steam (and, then, play all games which you can buy through it), play WoW and many other modern games which use TCP through 4xxx ports?
Thank you.
ISPs have been known to filter certain ports for various reasons. Users should complain loudly to them (or switch) in order to send a signal that such is not to be tolerated. You can encourage them to do so but of course that doesn't solve your problem (or really answer your question).
Common reasons are:
- trying to block bittorrent traffic
- limit bandwidth usage (largely related to previous reason)
- security (mistaken)
- control (companies often don't want employees goofing off)
The easiest thing for you to do is run your game over port 443 (perhaps as an alternate). That's HTTPS and so will not generally be blocked. However, because HTTPS is encrypted, there's no way to inspect the stream to know if its web traffic or something else and thus you can run any data stream (encrypted or not) that you wish over it.
That's precisely correct. In fact every public web site would by default block all ports except the ones they expect to be running some traffic they would want to.
This is the reason many applications often try to encapsulate their programs to use port 80 which can't be blocked as long as some one wants http traffic to run.
They simply don't want any application that they haven't approved to run through their servers. If you have a sensitive server in public you surely won't want any one to use your machine for any apps that you don't allow. A common reason is applications that eat up bandwidth such as bittorent, edonkey, gnutella as well as streaming, voip and other high bandwidth consuming apps
I'm trying to learn some of the ins and outs of P2P/decentralized networks. My question is the following. Say I have two machines named comp1 and comp2. Now comp1 is setup on my home network behind a router, and comp2 is located in my office at also behind a router. Is it possible for me to send UDP packets back and forth across the Internet like this assuming of course that ports are forwarded properly? To offer more insight on what I'm investigating, I'm trying to figure out how a new node would discover existing nodes without the use of a central server.
Thank you!
Assuming, as you said the ports are forwarded correctly you can send UDP packets to 2 clients behind router's.
A good way of detecting clients on a local intranet may be using Multicast, however this does not have widespread support on ISP's (At least here in the UK) so cannot be relied upon. Multicast is used by many device discovery platforms, such as mDNS (used inApple's Bonjour)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast
(It basically works by clients subscribing to groups, and then sending messages to that group)
I think the best way of discovering new clients over the internet is to have one server which new clients contact to let it know they exist, then the centralised server will tell all the other clients about you. This is used for example in P2P games such as Modern Warfare 2 and this is what the "Trackers" do in the BitTorrent protocol.
This isn't entirely decentralised but it's probably the easiest to implement, and the most reliable.
To add to Dotmister's response, if the ports are not forwarded correctly (e.g. the router isn't statically configured to forward the ports), you will have to look into something like UDP hole punching. Either way, in order to discover a new node without some sort of central server you'll have to rely on some sort of Multicast.
We're implementing a SIP-based solution and have configured the setup to work with RTPProxy. Right now, we're routing everything through RTPProxy as we were having some issues with media transport relying on ICE. If we're not mistaken, a central relay server is necessary for relaying streaming data between two clients if they're behind symmetric NATs. In practice, is this a large percentage of all consumer users? How much bandwidth woudl we save if we implemented proper routing to skip the relay server when not necessary. Are there better solutions we're missing?
In falling order of usefulness:
There is a direct connection between the two endpoints in both directions. You just connect and you are essentially done.
There is a direct connection between the two endpoints in one direction. In that case you just connect via the right direction by trying both.
Both parties are behind NATs of some kind.
Luckily, UPnP works in one end, you can then upgrade the connection to the above scheme
UPnP doesn't work, but STUN does. Use it to punch a hole in the NAT. There are a couple of different protocols but the general trick is to negotiate via a middle man that coordinates the NAT-piercing.
You fall back to let another node on the network act as a relaying proxy.
If you implement the full list above, then you have to give up very few connections and don't have to spend much time on bandwidth utilization at proxies. The BitTorrent protocol, of which I am somewhat familiar, usually stops at UPnP, but provides a built-in test to test for connectivity through the NAT.
One really wonders why IPv6 did not get implemented earlier - this is a waste of programmers time.
Real world NAT types survey (not a huge dataset, though):
http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/results.php
According to Google, about 8% of the traffic has to be relayed: http://code.google.com/apis/talk/libjingle/important_concepts.html
A large percentage (if not the majority) of home users uses NAT, as that is what those xDSL/cable routers use to provide network access to the local network.
You can theoretically use UPnP to open ports and set-up forwarding rules on the router to go through the NAT transparently. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who you are) many users disable UPnP as a matter of course on their router and may not appreciate having to add forwarding rules manually.
What you might be able to do (and what Skype does AFAIK) is to have some of the users that have clear network paths and enough bandwidth act as relay nodes. Apart from the routing and QoS issues, you would at least have to find some way to ensure the privacy of any relayed data from anyone, including the owner of the relay node. In addition, there might be legal issues to settle with this approach, apart from the technical ones.
I'm making a network game (1v1) where in-game its p2p - no need for a game server.
However, for players to be able to "find each other", without the need to coordinate in another medium and enter IP addresses (similar to the modem days of network games), I need to have a coordination/matching server.
I can't use regular web hosting because:
The clients will communicate in UDP.
Therefore I'll need to do UDP Hole Punching to be able to go through the NAT
That would require the server to talk in UDP and know the client's IP and port
afaik with regular web hosting (php/etc) I can only get the client's IP address and can only communicate in TCP (HTTP).
Options I am currently considering:
Use a hosting solution where my program can accept UDP connection. (any recommendations?)
UDPonNAT seems to do this but uses GTalk and requires each client to have a GTalk account for this (which probably makes it an unsuitable solution)
Any ideas? Thanks :)
First, let me say that this is well out of my realm of expertise, but I found myself very interested, so I've been doing some searching and reading.
It seems that the most commonly prescribed solution for UDP NAT traversal is to use a STUN server. I did some quick searches to see if there are any companies that will just straight-up provide you with a STUN hosting solution, but if there even were any, they were buried in piles of ads for simple web hosting.
Fortunately, it seems there are several STUN servers that are already up and running and free for public use. There is a list of public STUN servers at voip-info.org.
In addition, there is plenty more information to be had if you explore SO questions tagged "nat".
I don't see any other choice than to have a dedicated server running your code. The other solutions you propose are, shall we say, less than optimal.
If you start small, virtual hosting will be fine. Costs are pretty minimal.
Rather than a full-blown dedicated server, you could just get a cheap shared hosting service and have the application interface with a PHP page, which in turn interfaces with a MySQL database backend.
For example, Lunarpages has a $3/month starter package that includes 5gb of space and 50gb of bandwidth. For something this simple, that's all you should need.
Then you just have your application poll the web page for the list of games, and submit a POST request in order to add their own game to the list.
Of course, this method requires learning PHP and MySQL if you don't already know them. And if you do it right, you can have the PHP page enter a sort of infinite loop to keep the connection open and just feed updates to the client, rather than polling the page every few seconds and wasting a lot of bandwidth. That's way outside the scope of this answer though.
Oh, and if you're looking for something absolutely free, search for a free PHP host. Those exist too! Even with an ad-supported host, your app could just grab the page and ignore the ads when you parse the list of games. I know that T35 used to be one of my favorites because their free plan doesn't track space or bandwidth (it limits the per-file size, to eliminate their service being used as a media share, but it shouldn't be a problem for PHP files). But of course, I think in the long run you'll be better off going with a paid host.
Edit: T35 also says "Free hosting allows 1 domain to be hosted, while paid offers unlimited domain hosting." So you can even just pay for a domain name and link it to them! I think in the short term, that's your best (cheapest) bet. Of course, this is all assuming you either know or are willing to learn PHP in order to make this happen. :)
There's nothing that every net connection will support. STUN is probably good, UPnP can work for this.
However, it's rumored that most firewalls can be enticed to pass almost anything through UDP port 53 (DNS). You might have to argue with the OS about your access to that port though.
Also, check out SIP, it's another protocol designed for this sort of thing. With the popularity of VOIP, there may be decent built-in support for this in more firewalls.
If you're really committed to UDP, you might also consider tunneling it over HTTP.
how about you break the problem into two parts - make a game matcher client (that is distinct from the game), which can communicate via http to your cheap/shared webhost. All gamers who wants to use the game matching function use this. THe game matcher client then launches the actual game with the correct parameters (IP, etc etc) after obtaining the info from your server.
The game will then use the standard way to UDP punch thru NAT, etc etc, as per your network code. The game dont actually need to know anything about the matcher client or matcher server - in the true sense of p2p (like torrents, once you can obtain your peer's IPs, you can even disconnect from the tracker).
That way, your problems become smaller.
An intermediate solution between hosting your own dedicated server and a strictly P2P networking environment is the gnutella model. In that model, there are superpeers that act like local servers, having known IP addresses and being connected to (and thus having knowledge of) more clients than a typical peer. This still requires you to run at least one superpeer yourself, but it gives you the option to let other people run their own superpeers.