Donations
|
If you wish to make a donation you can by clicking the image below.
|
|
|
|
16th November, 2007, 09:01 AM
|
Killing Spree
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 24
|
|
Still not able to host Server on NAT
I have installed the 1.33 GB Full Version Windows Beta Dedicated Server on a VMWare Virtual Machine running Windows XP Professional SP2.
The Virtual Machine is on a bridged Network and thus receives an IP via DHCP from my Router.
I linked the MAC address of the VM to a specific IP address, and forwarded the ports 7777, 6500 and 27900 to the IP address of the Virtual machine in my Network.
Still, just like in the UT3Demo-DS the Serverbrowser is NOT getting the external IP of the Router, but instead it seems like it uses the internal IP address of the Network behind the Router.
I verified this in my logfile for the client, and there it shows, that the Client connects to the Internal IP address.
People from somewhere else can´t join onto the Server, unless they specifically type "open dyndns.address.here:7777"
Of course this works, as the dyndns address is the External IP address of the Router which is connected to the WAN.
So far i have found no option helping to circumvent this. If anybody has got any idea on how to cope with this, please let me know.
I really hope that they release the Linux DS soon. Then i won´t have to deal with NAT issues or pesky WindowsXP Virtual machines anymore ... :/
|
20th November, 2007, 03:40 PM
|
Forum Newcomer
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA.gif
Posts: 3
|
|
No where in your post did you mention anything about using the -multihome=123.123.123.123 command.
Are you using it in your commandline? If not, that is your problem. You want to put the above argument at the end of your commandline, specifying the public/external IP address that you want to advertise for clients to connect to.
|
20th November, 2007, 08:32 PM
|
Rampage
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 60
|
|
multihome isn't working atm anyways.
it will be fixed in the upcoming patch
after the first patch, epic is gonna focus on the webadmin
|
20th November, 2007, 10:56 PM
|
Forum Newcomer
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7
|
|
Multihome most certainly is working.
|
21st November, 2007, 09:46 AM
|
Killing Spree
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 24
|
|
i tried out the -multihome option, i tried every IP there is on the path from the Virtual machine to the NAT-Router, and i even tried to supply a -multihome xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx , where i used my current external IP, that i read from the Routers Interface as it´s WAN IP.
But with the option -multihome ext.IP.of.Router the server won´t even show up on the Serverbrowser list, so i can´t even verify if i could connect via the Serverbrowser.
Well anyways, i am gonna wait till they release a working Linux DS. TBH i don´t have the Time nor the motivation to make time for experimenting with this Software.
I still have to go to work once in a while and after almost 2 complete days worth of my time invested into trying to host some stable UT3 Servers for my Clanmates, on our quadcore Opteron Rig running Gentoo Linux 64-Bit OS, and trying out stuff here at home on a WindowsXP Virtual Machine with the Windows releases of the DS, i feel kind of frustrated and unmotivated to continue this endeavour until there is a satisfying solution for Linux.
I will just stick to playing on our old UT2k4 Servers, where there are people every night who i know and care about.
For me, as long as i am not able to host any decent UT3 Server on our Linux Rig natively, UT3 Multiplayer is on hold for the time being.
|
21st November, 2007, 10:24 AM
|
Holy Shit!!
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK, South, Middle
Posts: 625
|
|
It's most likely due to the firewall. The first patch should address these issues....
__________________
Dogsbody at Miasma: Berserk Warfare (ONS and vCTF), Custom Freon, TAM, iCTF
Previously Admin at Titan Internet UK UT2004 Servers: (32 player ONS, Freon, RPG CTF)
|
21st November, 2007, 02:50 PM
|
|
Forum Newcomer
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11
|
|
Quote:
-multihome xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx , where i used my current external IP
|
I was having trouble with the server causing a GPF if I used -multihome. I had been using my EXTERNAL address in the multihome field. In the command parameters listed on this site, it states that multihome should specify the INTERNAL address.
This morning, I switched it to INTERNAL and the server booted up perfectly. I ran out of time to test, however. So, I do not know if it is working 100% yet. If you would like to test, it should be advertised under VCTF servers. (It is only the Suspense map for now, until I get it fully working.)
The server name should be listed as:
wbserver: WeirdBeard's VCTF Server [24 Players]
So, to recap, I have:
-multihome=XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
where XXX is the IP address of the machine on my internal LAN. My router has the ports forwarded from the outside to this IP.
Hope this helps.
-WB
|
21st November, 2007, 11:35 PM
|
|
Forum Newcomer
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11
|
|
No luck
The server boots with the -multihome=internal_IP and it shows up in the server list but no one can connect. I can connect to it via the server list from another machine on my LAN without any problem. If I use -multihome=external_IP, the server won't boot and throws a GPF.
Does anyone have a complete checklist of things to set in order to run a public server from behind a firewall?
I have seen many things posted, some which conflict, and some which are different for the Beta Server. At this point, I am confused because nothing seems to work.
My old UT2K4 server still works like a champ.
Thanks in advance!
-WB
|
22nd November, 2007, 12:01 AM
|
|
Godlike
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada Eh!
Posts: 348
|
|
Sounds like we should be waiting for the next patch to run a NAT'd instance of the game. I've stopped trying to get it to work. To many hours wasted debugging a beta dedicated server.
|
22nd November, 2007, 12:58 AM
|
Killing Spree
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 26
|
|
Epic should at least buy us lunch.
|
22nd November, 2007, 02:34 AM
|
|
Forum Newcomer
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11
|
|
Further investigation
Okay, so the multihome= switch should use the public/external IP address.
I made mention of these issues on Epic's forums. Dubious has provided some feedback. Here is a link to where my contribution begins, in case more information falls out of it:
Multihome errors
Looks like the first patch will have some better NAT support. Let's keep our fingers crossed!
|
23rd November, 2007, 03:54 AM
|
|
Godlike
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada Eh!
Posts: 348
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaughter
Epic should at least buy us lunch.
|
I'd settle for a client copy of the game !
Beta patch isn't fixing the NAT issue for me - (if the client isn't patched too)
Last edited by b][rch.Co30 : 24th November, 2007 at 08:06 PM.
Reason: added - (if the client isn't patched too)
|
23rd November, 2007, 07:18 AM
|
Forum Newcomer
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4
|
|
Is the beta patch publicly available to test?
|
23rd November, 2007, 08:00 AM
|
Dominating
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 141
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sCaryDeth
Is the beta patch publicly available to test?
|
No, the beta patch isn't public.
__________________
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin
|
23rd November, 2007, 08:21 AM
|
|
Holy Shit!!
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bergen - Norway
Posts: 2,389
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeirdBeard
Okay, so the multihome= switch should use the public/external IP address.
|
I have no experience with UT3 what so ever, but I do have a few UT servers.
The multihome switch is used to bind to one of the server's IP's. I havent had a server behind NAT in ages, but I remember using multihome for selecting one of the servers local IP's behind NAT. I dont really see how you would be able to bind to an IP that your server cannot "see", which would in most cases include your public IP.
Last edited by PizzaMan : 23rd November, 2007 at 08:23 AM.
|
24th November, 2007, 08:00 PM
|
|
Forum Newcomer
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11
|
|
Quote:
I dont really see how you would be able to bind to an IP that your server cannot "see", which would in most cases include your public IP.
|
I agree and was quite perplexed by this one... I kept getting conflicting information. I was assured on the Epic forums that this was the case, however. I figured that maybe the command did not directly "bind" the address (even though this was the terminology used in the logs.) I thought maybe it was just shorthand and that the startup process somehow cached this address and used it to traverse NAT (as I knew it could not actually bind to an address not in the interface.)
I was not able to confirm with my UT2K4 server until this morning, when I unarchived my old server... It seems you are correct: I had been using the internal address for this setting in order for traffic to traverse NAT.
I will follow-up on the Epic post. Thanks!
|
24th November, 2007, 08:03 PM
|
|
Godlike
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada Eh!
Posts: 348
|
|
The patch does appear to fix the NAT traversal issue IF the client and server are patched. Woot ! The " STUN" solution they added seems to be doing the trick.
( As the server currently only one enabled NIC - i don't use the -multihome= option at all in the command line )
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|