LOL! WAIT LOOK! I See a Charmander,

Better go catch it with my pokeball!

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

eh all fps games running on udp (over internet) which is best for this coz is fastest, there isnt other choice, so shut up about udp before u read sth

man saying that udp is bullshit, much more important is quality of application protocol on higher level than udp itself
get clue :}

UDP Is Unreliable, it is a fact. Look it up. My original problem that I was seeking help with is UDP related. You are turning this discussion into some other debate. If you can assist me and others with the “Server Fading Away” issue, then do so. Otherwise, be quite and sort your Pokemon cards. Cheers.

UDP Is Unreliable, it is a fact. - yes
so we will use tcp and send 4 times more packets? :}
try to search this forum again man..

you have no idea how udp/tcp working -> so i go check if my pikatchu sleeping already

Again, you are not staying on the subject. I have never said I want to force TCP to bind for Quake, just that I have had more success with it on other instances. So pay attention. You offer nothing to the forum. Some Linux scipts ...thanks for nothing. You are the reason most peeps are afraid to speakup in forums, you just belittle them. Grow up.

Now pikatchu , Since you are so brillant, fix my problem.
I am running, Windows 2003 server. You need more specs? Let me know.

Ahhh, UDP vs. TCP. That's always a fun debate. But it really isn't a matter of one being better than the other. It depends STRONGLY on the purpose it is being used for. TCP is by far better for reliability, but FAR from without flaw, fragmentation first off can be a real problem, which can really be a pain when the cpu is already hammered with other stuff, which can lead to application lags as your kernel trys franticly to peice those packets back together. however the fact the TCP is statefull can be a real help when it comes to NAT and MASQUERADING gateways. UDP on the other hand, being statelss can have some real issues traversing a MASQUERADING/NAT firewall/gateway but offers much better speed as the CPU has no overhead keeping up with the state of the connection or putting chunks of data back together. but the nat issues can pose a huge problem when trying to host some servers (read: QUAKE3) inside of a NATed network. so the simple fact is that neither is better, in reality for multiplayer games IPX/SPX was truly the best protocol. but that is a bit of a moot point on the internet.

anyway, back to the real topic of this thread. the "fading" effect can be quite simple to solve with an iptables gateway. the trick is to make the master browser THINK your server has changed ports, all the while redirecting incomming traffic to the same port on the internal server. this can be acheived with some DNAT rules.

iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p udp -d <external ip> --dport <fake server port> -j DNAT --to <internal server address>:<real server port>

add about 6 or so of these rules with diffrent fake port numbers.

examples:

66666
66667
66668
66669
66610
66611

all pointing to the same internal address/port, and be sure your real server pors is none of these. ie 65555

then deny all the outbound packets going to the master browsers from port 65555

iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -p tcp -d <master ip> --sport 65555 -j DROP

do this for all the master browsers you see your server trying to send to. now, every 10 muinets send a heartbeat packet to the master server from your firewall from one of the fake ports. incrementing each time until you reach the last then start back from the first one.

this my friend should keep your server full of noobs and near the top of the list. (in game browser that is)

now i know your are running the server on a windows box which is fine as long as youu are using a linux box with iptables as your gateway(as far as this config is concerned atleast). If your macheine is connected directly to your cable modem with no nat/firewall,, well you are asking for the next worm that comes along anyway, If you happen to be using a linksys WRT54G type router, you are in luck,,,, it's a linux box running iptables for all the NAT/firewalling goodies anyways. I will apoligize in advance (read: before some one points it out) for my gross misspelling of soooo many things in this message. It is 1:30am or so for me here. I really do hope this info can be of some help to you or anyone else for that matter. But as far as doing something like this directly on a windows box,, youre outta luck, as windows is quite an inferior operating system and lacks many usefull niceities such as a competent netfilter/packetfilter subsystem in it's obscenely obese kernel..
-HeadTrip