Comments on: IP MASQ shortcuts causing Grapple to fail/2009/07/04/ip-masq-shortcuts-causing-grapple-to-fail/ Commercial gaming for Linux Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:18:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Michael Simms (CEO and head of Development)/2009/07/04/ip-masq-shortcuts-causing-grapple-to-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-459 Michael Simms (CEO and head of Development) Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:23:50 +0000 /?p=270#comment-459 Oh, and as to broadcast, we haven't incorporated that, but we have plans for broadcast and avahi - when time allows us to impliment these things {:-) Oh, and as to broadcast, we haven’t incorporated that, but we have plans for broadcast and avahi – when time allows us to impliment these things {:-)

]]> By: Michael Simms (CEO and head of Development)/2009/07/04/ip-masq-shortcuts-causing-grapple-to-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-458 Michael Simms (CEO and head of Development) Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:22:14 +0000 /?p=270#comment-458 Well, the bug was found when starting a game up via <a href="http://www.penguinplay.com" rel="nofollow">PenguinPlay</a>. PPlay holds scores and allows player matchmaking and so, starting the game via this server needs use of the STUN server. There is always a local LAN version for those that do not wish to register on PenguinPlay. Well, the bug was found when starting a game up via PenguinPlay. PPlay holds scores and allows player matchmaking and so, starting the game via this server needs use of the STUN server. There is always a local LAN version for those that do not wish to register on PenguinPlay.

]]> By: Cyberfrag/2009/07/04/ip-masq-shortcuts-causing-grapple-to-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-456 Cyberfrag Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:18:46 +0000 /?p=270#comment-456 Ok, I see. But isn't going through the STUN process for hosts that are on the same subnet a bit of an overkill? Why not provide some kind of "LAN-mode" which announces games only on the local segment (e.g. via Broadcast on the local area subnet) and avoids the STUN-overhead? Ok, I see. But isn’t going through the STUN process for hosts that are on the same subnet a bit of an overkill? Why not provide some kind of “LAN-mode” which announces games only on the local segment (e.g. via Broadcast on the local area subnet) and avoids the STUN-overhead?

]]> By: Michael Simms (CEO and head of Development)/2009/07/04/ip-masq-shortcuts-causing-grapple-to-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-455 Michael Simms (CEO and head of Development) Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:44:20 +0000 /?p=270#comment-455 Its arranged kindof like: <blockquote>STUN Server | Internets | Gateway IP MASQ | -------------------------------- | | | Laptop Other machines</blockquote> Oi, formatting in comments is painful, and doesnt work too well, but hopefully you see Its arranged kindof like:

STUN Server
|
Internets
|
Gateway IP MASQ
|
——————————–
| | |
Laptop Other machines

Oi, formatting in comments is painful, and doesnt work too well, but hopefully you see

]]> By: Cyberfrag/2009/07/04/ip-masq-shortcuts-causing-grapple-to-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-454 Cyberfrag Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:44:13 +0000 /?p=270#comment-454 Meh - the setup has been "untagged". I meant: B/Laptop/Server --- NATBox --- INTERNET --- A/Gateway/Client Meh – the setup has been “untagged”. I meant:

B/Laptop/Server — NATBox — INTERNET — A/Gateway/Client

]]> By: Cyberfrag/2009/07/04/ip-masq-shortcuts-causing-grapple-to-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-453 Cyberfrag Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:42:06 +0000 /?p=270#comment-453 I don't quite get it. Your setup is as follows? B/Laptop/Server NATBox INTERNET A/Gateway/Client How does the private address of B ever get to A through the NATBox? I don’t quite get it. Your setup is as follows?

B/Laptop/Server NATBox INTERNET A/Gateway/Client

How does the private address of B ever get to A through the NATBox?

]]>