client port foward connect to "Ping Timed Out"

[sam686]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mSIL41FaFY

This video will show how I port forward to connect to "Ping Timed Out" server. Port number is random and it changes. Is there a way tell the client to use a specific port number?

Using same port number can avoid having me to change the router port forward every time I want to connect to "Ping Timed Out" server.

[karamazovapy]

The player hosting the server can specify a port in the command line or via .ini. Generally, ping timeout in the game lobby has to do with the host's router or firewall configuration...but apparently it can be client side too...?

[raptor]

Client (you) -> internet -> router (and hardware firewall) -> software firewall -> bitfighter server

Ping time out just means that somewhere along the above path (almost always the home router fronting the bitfighter server) is block ICMP packets or 'ping' packets. It is default behaviour for most software firewalls to block them as well. So, you can have a port open, punching through the software firewall -> router -> internet and still have 'ping timed out' with no loss of functionality to the server.

D

[watusimoto]

There is a stub in the new host menu where I intend to provide an option for specifying the port via the UI, but I haven't implemented it yet, and if you are doing firewall config, the INI file is a better option.

The first server you host should default to port 28000; if you host subsequent servers, they request a port from the OS if the user hasn't specified one. That is behavior dating back to the dawn of this project, and we could change if needed.

There is one other possible solution to all this, but it is complex. When a client wants to connect to a server, it asks for an arranged connection from the master server. The master has a pre-existing connection with clients and servers, and so it alerts the server that a client wants to connect. The server then sends a packet to the client (which usually fails), but that tricks the firewall into thinking that packets coming from the client are a response to the server's request, so the server's firewall lets the client's connect request packets through.

Ping packets, however, go directly from client to server, with no intervention from the master. I'm hoping (someday) do have ping packets initially go via the master to open the connection, much as game connection packets do. While that scheme may not work 100% of the time, it would reduce the number of pingTimeOut servers we see, and would not require any firewall configuration.

At least I think that's the case.

[sam686]

Ping only goes number 1. Connect will try both.
1. my client -> my router -> firewall blocking -> server fail to connect
2. server (28000) -> firewall -> my router (forward port 2642) -> my client (2642)

I have to foward UDP 2642, but the client change port numbers. Nothing to do with server port, it is my client port number I want it to not change.

[karamazovapy]

I have to foward UDP 2642, but the client change port numbers. Nothing to do with server port, it is my client port number I want it to not change.

This is the quirk illustrated in the video linked that I hadn't witnessed before...

You can *usually* connect to a ping timeout server, but here is an instance where you can't without configuring client-side port forwarding. I've never seen it before, and I'm at a bit of a loss.

[watusimoto]

Oh, I see. You want to tell the client to connect to, say port 2000, no matter what port the remote server is on?

If you're the client, why do you care about port forwarding? I thought that was only for servers.

[raptor]

Ports will constantly change on the client side - the operating system keeps track of the outgoing ports and will open one at random to connect to a server.

You never need to worry about outgoing ports (client side ports) because they are never actually serving up data, only receiving. You only have to worry about ports on the server side.

[sam686]

If I don't foward ports, I will not be able to connect to "Ping Timed Out" Server.

Let's say I am the client, and I have a router, the server have firewall blocking connections.

Server and client are both connected to master, and tell the server to connect to client.

Since the server might not be able to receive any connection from client (firewall), the client listens to connection, server connects to client, port forward so the received connection gets to my computer with connection success. If I don't port forward, client will not receive connection and fail to connect.

Most servers without ping timed out, client connects to server without any trouble, and without the need to forward ports.

Server port is easy to tell, but the client port uses its own port number, finding out what port the client is using, I go to my firewall, active connections, and go to router configuration to port forward the client source address.

The client port number (was 2642) is random and different for each session, I would like it to not change, as i keep having to change the port foward number to match what the client uses, every time I want to connect to ping out server. In the video, carefully look at my active connection in source address and destination address.

[watusimoto]

I think you perhaps misunderstood.

Since the server might not be able to receive any connection from client (firewall), the client listens to connection, server connects to client, port forward so the received connection gets to my computer with connection success. If I don't port forward, client will not receive connection and fail to connect.

When the server gets a message from the master that a client (player) wants to connect, the server sends a packet to the client. What happens to that packet is not important -- it is the act of sending that tells the server's firewall that it should be allowed to receive incoming packets from the client. The client thinks it is initializing the connection, so it needs no special firewall ports open. It is starting the outgoing connection, and should be able to do so via any port.

Port forwarding could help on the server, possibly, but not on the client.

[karamazovapy]

Port forwarding could help on the server, possibly, but not on the client.

The video makes it look like client port forwarding could matter. I know that's weird, but that's how it looks.

[sam686]

The video makes it look like client port forwarding could matter. I know that's weird, but that's how it looks.

If I don't port foward, me trying to connect to "Ping timed out" server always get me "Unable to join game"

Strange part is when I forward a port my client is using, I can successfully connect to "Ping Timed Out".

I only opened my firewall just to check the active connection. Take a look at "UDP IN" when I successfully connect while using my router port forward. There is a failed "UDP OUT" with zero bytes in. My client was using port 3070.

If I don't port forward, I don't receive UDP IN and then fail to connect. "UDP OUT" of the same "204." address is always zero bytes in.

[watusimoto]

OK, I _DO_ believe you, I just don't understand it yet. Ideally, rather than find a way to make your port forwarding idea work, we'd find a fix that works without port forwarding.

what if all the matches were server hosted not client hosted.

for example.

player a wants to host a game they login to BF and host a game this game is directly hosted on a universal BF server. (online might be best) and the match starts.

lets say somone wants to find a match after they login they select the match on the BF server and play.

note with this method logins will be straight into the BF server but remove the need for pings and port fowards.

[watusimoto]

what if all the matches were server hosted not client hosted.

Well, technically, they are. It's just that you are running the server on your local machine.

Now your real point is that you'd like the server to be hosted on a different, remote machine. We probably won't do this for a variety of reasons (technical and political). However, we can get close by giving someone admin rights to an existing server and letting them change levels, etc.

What aspects of "running a server" do you find important? That is, what powers over a server do you need to have to consider yourself "running it"?

Also, if you are so-motivated, you can rent a VPS (remote machine) for about $3 per month, and you can easily host a server there. You would have full control over that machine. We have instructions in the wiki about how to configure such a machine.

what if all the matches were server hosted not client hosted.

Well, technically, they are. It's just that you are running the server on your local machine.

Now your real point is that you'd like the server to be hosted on a different, remote machine. We probably won't do this for a variety of reasons (technical and political). However, we can get close by giving someone admin rights to an existing server and letting them change levels, etc.

What aspects of "running a server" do you find important? That is, what powers over a server do you need to have to consider yourself "running it"?

Also, if you are so-motivated, you can rent a VPS (remote machine) for about $3 per month, and you can easily host a server there. You would have full control over that machine. We have instructions in the wiki about how to configure such a machine.

1 reasons such as?

2 if all subservers are held on a super server with 1 port number and not local that would remove the need to change your port in the ini setting every time you wanted to join a new server and reduce the number of ping timed outs. ( example platform racing 2)

3. the person will still have the rights over the server its just that they are being hosted on main super server that holds the sub servers that people create also

4 I am sure there is free hosting somwhere out there.

[watusimoto]

If all servers are on the same, remote machine, there may be lag problems (as now you have many more packets coming and going, and several game processes running simultaneously), it will suck for people who have a longer ping time to the central game server, and there are all sorts of security issues of giving people access to launch processes on a remote machine.

You should not need to change any port settings in you INI to host a server locally -- I do it on occasion from my home machine, which is behind a double-NATed ISP configuration (normally very hostile to hosting servers), and remote users can still connect. I have changed nothing in my INI to allow me to do this.

If I better understood what features you would consider essential to managing a server, we might be able to find a way to make it work.

So let me repeat the question:

What aspects of "running a server" do you find important? That is, what powers over a server do you need to have to consider yourself "running it"?

what if all the matches were server hosted not client hosted.

Well, technically, they are. It's just that you are running the server on your local machine.

Now your real point is that you'd like the server to be hosted on a different, remote machine. We probably won't do this for a variety of reasons (technical and political). However, we can get close by giving someone admin rights to an existing server and letting them change levels, etc.

What aspects of "running a server" do you find important? That is, what powers over a server do you need to have to consider yourself "running it"?

Also, if you are so-motivated, you can rent a VPS (remote machine) for about $3 per month, and you can easily host a server there. You would have full control over that machine. We have instructions in the wiki about how to configure such a machine.

1 reasons such as?

2 if all subservers are held on a super server with 1 port number and not local that would remove the need to change your port in the ini setting every time you wanted to join a new server and reduce the number of ping timed outs. ( example platform racing 2)

3. the person will still have the rights over the server its just that they are being hosted on main super server that holds the sub servers that people create also

4 I am sure there is free hosting somwhere out there.

If we would have a "Super Server", when Bitfighter gets more populated, we would have a limited amount of servers in the "Super Server" and we would get allot of lag. And what is the point of hosting a server if you would just tell the "Super Server" to run another server?

We have this server system to get (we wouldn't get this on a "Super Server"):

-Unlimited amount of servers (wouldn't be possible on "Super Server"
-Way less lag
-FREE for the Bitfighter community (a "Super Server would cost some monay)



By the way most players NEVER have to touch to any ports. Your network system is incorrectly set up.

I never saw any place that would let you host a "Free server" with their bandwith and servers.

I never saw any place that would let you host a "Free server" with their bandwith and servers.

Just because you havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

oooOOOOoooo yeah I guess

maybe we need to chage the way bf is run to be more efficent and get less PTO any other ideas?

[raptor]

bitfighter is already *really* efficient (although it could be more so, with significant effort). Ping-timed-out is not a symptom of inefficiency, it is a symptom of the persons computer hosting the server.

[sam686]

The Bitfighter master already knows the server name and number of players in it. Might be possible to code it in to make client ask the master the server name when clients can't ping.

Can't use "/connect" command in server list lobby for servers that is ping timed out. The use of NAT (found on most routers) makes it difficult to avoid ping timed out problem, requiring server to port forwarding.

hmm maybe is there a nother way to have the master server reteive teh nubmer of players and bots and the server name regarless of the ping? being -999 which would still display to indicate itsa slwo server for that user?

[Lone Wolf]

hmm maybe is there a nother way to have the master server reteive teh nubmer of players and bots and the server name regarless of the ping? being -999 which would still display to indicate itsa slwo server for that user?

-999 must be the fastest connection ever. If 0 is no lag, a NEGATIVE would be like time travel so that you can move before he server even registers it. That might be what people would think at -999 ping. Maybe make it ???

Yeah, when you are about to shoot, you see yourself shooting before you click

The Bitfighter master already knows the server name and number of players in it. Might be possible to code it in to make client ask the master the server name when clients can't ping.

Can't use "/connect" command in server list lobby for servers that is ping timed out. The use of NAT (found on most routers) makes it difficult to avoid ping timed out problem, requiring server to port forwarding.

also maybe you can track the nubmer of players by counting the i.p's but the ping will still read -999 to let people know its slow?