Thank you for your answer and clarifying things. As you said, increased latency for Steamworks P2P is totally acceptable. I'm surprised you aren't doing this already in some form using Steams usual CDN, which might be the better idea since the SDT relays should prioritize game networking imho. But that won't help community servers, it could make things worse actually.
Since UDP communication between players and srcds would need to take the direct route, you still need to send the real IP-address to the clients at some point. So even if connections to srcds are only possible using the servers SteamID, you have to send the IP-address to the Client at some point. No encryption or hiding would help there, at some point its inevitable. That means, even if we keep the servers IP-address secret, all it needs is some guy leaking the SteamID (which can only be changed so often thanks to GSLT) and every steam user out there could send a connection request, which would be happily answered. The next authentication layer would be sv_password or a steamgroup reservation. Next thing you know some poor GSP sees his servers melting due to overload. You see, much work done and nothing archived. I still think your best bet would be a public available relay software. You give us choice between staying oldschool and keep things running as they are, or building our own relay (clusters) which could patch in to your systems as additional isolated relays reserved to our servers. Even without some sort of reservation, by nature SDT shouldn't even consider using your relays for our servers since the route would be abysmal compared to our relays. We would be solely responsible for possible connection issues. Maybe different server operators could join forces to create more reliable clusters for their own servers. I don't need to tell you what benefits you gain from running SDT, it would be the same for us. I'm aware that this is by no means a easy task, and that your current software wasn't designed for this and won't be ready for public usage any time soon. But everything we are able to do by our own, you don't have to do for us. And think of the additional features you could implement. Running Steamworks P2P Sessions from connected players through them like you are considering for your own relays are one, if not the best example for this. It's a win-win situation, really. Regards, Ragnos 2016-10-24 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fletcher Dunn <fletch...@valvesoftware.com>: > Steam datagram relay is currently only used for servers in our data center. > > > > We are considering routing all Steam P2P traffic over the relay network, > and that is probably how we would facilitate community servers taking > advantage of the DoS protection and IP privacy features. But there are > tradeoffs here, because it would mean that the traffic would always be > triangulated through at least one relay, so there would be some increase in > latency -- not because of the hop, but because the triangulated route will > be a bit slower than the direct route in most cases. For P2P traffic this > is probably an acceptable tradeoff. But dedicated server operators might > not want to have any increased latency, even to get the other benefits. > The extra latency isn’t an issue for valve servers, because we put relays > directly at our data centers, so the best “triangulated” route is never > worse than the direct route. > > > > All of this is a long way off, though. And we’d have to figure out way to > make server browsing and ping measurement work, etc. > > > > *From:* csgo_servers-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: > csgo_servers-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] *On Behalf Of *Marco Padovan > *Sent:* Friday, October 21, 2016 5:27 PM > *To:* csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > *Subject:* Re: [Csgo_servers] Steam datagram relay > > > > Nice analysis, hoping too to see relays available to us > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Ragnos <ragnos.utz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's 1am here, so no proof-reading. Cheers folks... > > I've experimented a bit with it. I got to the point where srcds actually > listened to incoming proxied traffic (by setting > +sv_steamdatagramtransport_port xy) but the relays won't forward my > connection attempts. You can verify your srcds is configured "correctly" > by checking your "status" printout for the following line: > > sdt : =[G:1:nnnnn] on port xy > > The only issue i found (besides it's not working at all, but thats the > relays "fault") is that the additional SDT port is not respecting the ip > or ip_steam cvars. That port listens to all interfaces, which could > cause problems on multihomed hosts. There are no cvars to control this > behaviour, including hidden cvars. I think that should be fixed by > either go after the "ip" cvar or giving it it's own like it has been > done with ip_tv and ip_tv1 for that additional gotv-instance. I propose > "ip_sdt". > > I think the relays have to be configured to acknowledge either certain > gameserver steamid's or predefined ip ranges, since Valve doesn't > applies GSLT restrictions to their own server version. (The clientside > sdt debug logging shows their servers run anonymous SteamID's) Steam > already knows which steamid belongs to which ip:port, it has to be the > relay then. > > If Valve want's to use SDT globally, there are only two ways to do so: > Option one would be routing every single bit of traffic from and to > community servers through their clusters. That means HUGE amounts of > traffic, way to inefficient, no way they are doing that. Also, ping > times and overall networking quality to everything else than Valve > servers would most likely get worse because the routing would be > optimized for their own data centers. Option two, obviously, is to give > us access to the relay software. Assuming the relays have to sign in > into steam like srcds, it would be easy to feed the clients with > information about which server is connected to which relay cluster. That > also could replace the current masterserver system and by that the old > server browser, and lays foundation for future changes like IPv6. That > option also suggests we could be able to construct our own relay > clusters to generate some kind of redundancy, just like Valve does. > > Wild theory: I think the only reason we can't use SDT with our servers > right now is that valve isn't done with the part where the client get's > the information which relay(cluster) to use with community servers. > Right now it's done via matchmaking, but that won't work for everything > non-valve. With DotA2 they had no need to work on that because there is > no offical community srcds. But then again it was easy to port the > existing DotA2-code over since our matchmaking originates from there. > Would be great to get some kind of confirmation on that from Valve, but > not getting one would match their corporate identity... > > **tl;dr:** community srcds is already to able to work with SDT, but > valve's relays just don't want to. imho best and most efficient way to > utilize SDT with community srcds would be to make the software generally > available, feed all needed info from community relays into steam and > back to the clients, and replace the old server browser while you're at > it. Only reason we can't utilize SDT right now is most likely good ol' > "not done yet". > > Cheers! > Ragnos > > Am 10/18/2016 um 2:23 PM schrieb Marco Padovan: > > I've personally been playing with "multiple ingress points" (nats and > > network forwads) many times... > > > > They works properly con call of duty/quake3 netcode but they were not > > working on sourceds netcode... > > > > We can provide both the edge servers, and the gameservers themself as > > long as the game is able to digest NAT / ip forward... having > > something running natively like valve does on the official servers > > would be even better. > > > > Hoping they will come forward with some details for the general public > > to set them up too > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:32 AM, wickedplayer494 > > <wickedplayer...@gmail.com <mailto:wickedplayer...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > The Steam Datagram relay system only deals with how clients > > connect to Valve's own server network, so for community server > > operators, it will be irrelevant. Also, today's update didn't > > affect the server version, so even if the Steam Datagram system > > was made available to community servers, the relevant commands > > would not work because of that. > > > > On 10/18/2016 3:07 AM, Marco Padovan wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> How can we setup steam datagram relays on community servers? Is > >> there any documentation out there? > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Csgo_servers mailing list > >> Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > >> <mailto:Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com> > >> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > csgo_servers > >> <https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > csgo_servers> > > _______________________________________________ Csgo_servers > > mailing list Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > > <mailto:Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com> > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers > > > <https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > csgo_servers> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Csgo_servers mailing list > > Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers > > > _______________________________________________ > Csgo_servers mailing list > Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers > > > > _______________________________________________ > Csgo_servers mailing list > Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >
_______________________________________________ Csgo_servers mailing list Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers
