/* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting! */ > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Best [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 12:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Masq] Re: Too much latency to play online games over a DSL > connection. > > > /* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ > before posting! */ > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Tomas Campos wrote: > > > starcraft, it works just fine. When one computer on the LAN > connects to > > battle.net and hosts a game and then another computer on the LAN > > connects to battle.net and attempts to join that same game > it shows that > > there is too much latency and will not permit the second computer to > > Hi. I just joined this list and read this message on the > list archive. This > is also something that I've experienced and wanted to share > with you and any > others what I think the problem is. > > First, Battle.net sets up a game by keeping track of each of > the players' IP > addresses and passing those addresses to each new player as > he/she joins the > game. Since Battle.net only knows about your external IP > address, it sees > both players as having the same address. When the two > players try to talk to > each other using that address, the IP Masquerade functions do > not know what to > with the packets. Yep, sounds correct to me. > > It may be possible for the code to be "fixed" to work with > such a scenario. > I've looked at the code but have a hard time following it. It is also The linux kernel code? I've asked a couple of times to look at the code of exactly how battle.net works, but I haven't gotten anyplace. Probably because I asked tech support and not sales. > possible for Battle.net to be fixed to work with > "masqueraded" players. This > could be done by Battle.net keeping track of players internal > and external IP > addresses and passing the internal address when two players > share the same > external address. Uhm, no, I don't think so. At least, I don't think this would be a good thing. In order for this to happen, battle.net would have to pass the IP address read from the local (game client) machine, and embed this IP address in every packet. Right now, battle.net works because it obeys proper routing rules, and because it uses 1 port for all communications. It would have to switch to using at least (max number of players in 1 game) ports for this to work properly, or come with a custom linux kernel module. The former is probably impractical, especially since they're not developing on older games anymore. It might be a possibility for whatever follows DiabloII (since most of the coding is done on that alread). The latter is not going to happen because blizzard would then be sponsoring Linux as a firewall/proxy, while they still won't even make a port of their games available for Linux. Greg _______________________________________________ Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Admin requests can be handled at http://www.indyramp.com/masq-list/ -- THIS INCLUDES UNSUBSCRIBING! or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE read the HOWTO and search the archives before posting. You can start your search at http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ Please keep general linux/unix/pc/internet questions off the list.
