robcore Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 For a future milestone, would you fellas be interested in blocking/allowing specific ip's within a cluster instead of the whole thing? I know it sounds ridiculous, but bear with me. Using Seattle as an example, BO4 on xbox seems to have blocks running virtual instances on different pieces of hardware. Sometimes, when a specific server is on a machine that is under a lot of workload or is a lower quality rental machine, certain instances play way worse than others. Still sounds ridiculous, I know, but I consistently get 3ms faster ping to 45.63.32.145 than 45.63.32.156, which leads me to believe that the lower address block is running on a higher end rig. Unrelated quick question about qos: does the device prioritization somehow bypass interface traffic shaping altogether? If that's the case, I am jealous of whoever coded that, even if it's just an nss hook or something it's genius. KeisezrG and Netduma Admin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Admin Posted April 17, 2019 Administrators Share Posted April 17, 2019 8 hours ago, robcore said: For a future milestone, would you fellas be interested in blocking/allowing specific ip's within a cluster instead of the whole thing? I know it sounds ridiculous, but bear with me. Using Seattle as an example, BO4 on xbox seems to have blocks running virtual instances on different pieces of hardware. Sometimes, when a specific server is on a machine that is under a lot of workload or is a lower quality rental machine, certain instances play way worse than others. Still sounds ridiculous, I know, but I consistently get 3ms faster ping to 45.63.32.145 than 45.63.32.156, which leads me to believe that the lower address block is running on a higher end rig. Unrelated quick question about qos: does the device prioritization somehow bypass interface traffic shaping altogether? If that's the case, I am jealous of whoever coded that, even if it's just an nss hook or something it's genius. Hi Rob - interesting idea, thanks for sharing. Most likely this would be too much of a sea change to do this - but manual entries into Allow & Deny might be something we could do. I'll add it to our ideas roadmap! robcore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robcore Posted April 17, 2019 Author Share Posted April 17, 2019 3 hours ago, Netduma Admin said: Hi Rob - interesting idea, thanks for sharing. Most likely this would be too much of a sea change to do this - but manual entries into Allow & Deny might be something we could do. I'll add it to our ideas roadmap! Umm...manual entries are an amazing idea. Thank you! This may echo other people's requests, but maybe allowing qos priority ranges to "overlap" would be cool. That way I could specify, say, src:3075 dst 3075-65535 AND src:3075-65545 dst:3075 to cover my bases given that actual game server vm instances connect to our 3075 via a randomized port on their end (only peers connect 1 to 1 with 3075). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Fraser Posted April 17, 2019 Administrators Share Posted April 17, 2019 If you were going to do two rules like that you may as well do one rule to combine them src 3075-65535 dst 3075-65535 robcore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robcore Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 Ahh my example was bad. Normally I would agree with you, but the cod matchmaking is messy with ports (as I'm sure you guys know way too well 😅). Basically, I want to prioritize the actual connection to the host, but not the other players in the match. The host port is usually something in the 30k to 60k range connected to 3075 on our end, and the other players we connect to are 1 to 1 3075. So it would be more like src:3075 dst:10000-65535 and src:10000-60000 dst:3075. Am I making sense or do I need stronger coffee this morning? Lol thanks for the reply man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Fraser Posted April 21, 2019 Administrators Share Posted April 21, 2019 I get what you mean but with BO4 you're connecting to a server rather than other players, your connection to them is through the server so as it stands you'd just be prioritizing the connection to the server anyway. Say that wasn't the case though, what would be your reasoning for not wanting to prioritize a connection to players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robcore Posted April 23, 2019 Author Share Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) On 4/21/2019 at 6:20 AM, Netduma Fraser said: I get what you mean but with BO4 you're connecting to a server rather than other players, your connection to them is through the server so as it stands you'd just be prioritizing the connection to the server anyway. Say that wasn't the case though, what would be your reasoning for not wanting to prioritize a connection to players? Good question! I believe that udp between other players over 3075 is used primarily for voice chat. In my case, i'd rather just strictly prioritize my connection with the server, and let the p2p audio be categorized as bulk traffic. Sorry, I know I'm a pest...but my inner nerd used to be obsessed with iptables 😅 Edit: Ps. I imagine the team has a variety of methods available to them for this sort of thing, but if you're ever in need of a small, portable, and low footprint method for listing current nat'd connections, check out https://tweegy.nl/projects/netstat-nat/ It's netstat, but with full nat support! Edited April 23, 2019 by robcore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Fraser Posted April 23, 2019 Administrators Share Posted April 23, 2019 Neither the audio chat or the game itself is going to pull much bandwidth at all so you really wouldn't notice a benefit from doing that but I get your point! robcore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the kappa convict Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 Just a quick Question also on the p2p party chat, if someone has a terrible connection and they are also using party chat in such as black ops can this have an effect on connection to others such as lag through shots etc ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Admin Posted April 27, 2019 Administrators Share Posted April 27, 2019 4 hours ago, the kappa convict said: Just a quick Question also on the p2p party chat, if someone has a terrible connection and they are also using party chat in such as black ops can this have an effect on connection to others such as lag through shots etc ?? Is your question that a laggy player using party chat is even worse than a laggy player not using party chat? If so, then no, party chat shouldn't affect their connection any more. It uses very little bandwidth, so highly unlikely to have any affect on their connection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the kappa convict Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 yeah I just wanted to know could someone take advantage of a bad connection to help them with the use of party chat as it also requires a constant connection, thanks for the response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robcore Posted April 27, 2019 Author Share Posted April 27, 2019 On 4/23/2019 at 11:26 AM, Netduma Fraser said: Neither the audio chat or the game itself is going to pull much bandwidth at all so you really wouldn't notice a benefit from doing that but I get your point! Can confirm after having done some tcpdumping and compared to the actual communication with the game server, that the other udp traffic is negligible as far as potential congestion goes. That said, BO4 actually deserves credit in this area because it allows disabling lobby chat in favour of party, so the level of traffic generated is far less than past games like ww2. Netduma Admin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now