Please consider reimplementing TCP/IP in D2R

General Discussion
62

That’s not a reason. There is no disadvantage to using IP6, even if you don’t “need” it. It does all the same things that IP 4 does, and if anything, provides at least temporarily better security just by virtue of not everybody using it.

You say “secure enough” at the end there. But why settle for “good enough?” I have a saying, and it really isn’t my own: Good enough isn’t.

As far as the stuff specific to Blizzard games, IP6 is supposed to have backwards compatibility

You can do whatever you want, I’m not imposing anything. I’m just pointing out the fact that IP4 is an antiquated standard, and while we have over the years of its existence come up with many ways to offset its deficiencies, they are deficiencies nonetheless and it makes more sense to use a system that was designed from the beginning to address them. Literally the only advantage IP4 really has over IP6 is addresses are smaller and thus easier to enter manually when needed by software.

You should use it because it’s a good idea, not simply because someone on the internet told you so. My post was not a command or an order.

63

You can tout and promote the benefits of IPv6. I’m not fighting against benefits of IPv6. If I need to traverse 0.5 miles to shop at a supermarket on a clear, warm summer day, then I don’t need:

  • an airplane
  • a tank
  • an all terrain vehicle
  • a police escort
  • a secret service escort
  • 5 armed body guards

Walking to the supermarket alone is all that I need. You can call IPv4 antiquate but it still works just fine; especially for small private networks. Even though you call IPv4 antiquated, but there is no major or significant performance benefits by using IPv6. My points again is there:

  • is no need to require IPv6
  • there is no need for zero config client software when a network is already configured
  • If IPv6 is the only protocol used then naming services are require… either centralized (DNS) or decentralized (broadcast/discover). No one is going to type in a long IPv6 address to connect to a PC to join a game.
  • Keeping the software tied to IPv4 for now should allow for players to enter a dotted IPv4 address to connect/join a game.
  • Windows has Netbios which is already a broadcast/discover name service so additional name services are unnecessary.
64

I mean shorter addresses alone would be enough of a reason for me. :stuck_out_tongue:

65

No comment on the IPv4 vs IPv6 argument as I have basically no knowledge of networking, but I’d take either one if it meant TCP/IP reimplementation. :slight_smile:

Even if it were further down the line once D4 releases and D2R simmers down on updates it’d be great if TCP were officially added back. Modded multiplayer alone would be a huge boon for D2R’s longevity along with the other numerous benefits.

66

This is a ridiculous way to make such a trivial point.
Like I said, you do you. But IP6 should be the standard. IP4 should go away entirely. That’s my opinion. It’s ready for prime time, it was entirely designed and built to replace IP6. The only reason it hasn’t is basically the same reason the US hasn’t entirely converted to the metric system- because it’s too expensive to go all in on when we have something that "technically* works. It would cost a stupid amount of money just to replace all the mile markers with KM ones (and more would be needed than mile markers), and further costs to update all the signage that doesn’t already have KM on it, replacing all the speed limit signs to show KM, etc.

It’s not because the old system is better, its because the barriers to moving to the new system are high.

But in the case of IP6, it’s already here. every major backbone ISP supports it. It’s only end user adoption that has been low.

67

4 months later then 16 days later

Necro c-c-combo!!

But yeah, they should. Especially since you have to log on every 30 days to verify anyway. Originally I thought it was anti-piracy, but now I’m thinking those security holes must be really really massive.

3 Likes
68

Thing is those shorter addresses are the exact reason IP6 is needed. There aren’t enough IP addresses for every device to have a unique one. private ranges, NAT, etc. were all developed after the standard itself to remedy this problem, but they’re basically band-aids, the protocol itself needed to be updated to create a more permanent solution. When IP4 was created, no one really imagined running out of address space.

69

I mean, they were saying that when they had 128kb hard drives. Only people that believed that were actually pretty short sighted. They should have been able to look at their own history and witnessed Moore’s law.

70

to correct your hyperbole a bit, the first hard drives had storage in the megabytes. like a 10MB hard drive cost like $4000, they were only used by big businesses with CP/M machines, before the IBM PC took off.

71

Glad you could recall that, but it literally doesn’t affect the validity of the point at all. Still, cool info.

72

that was never the intention in the first place. Just need to be sure you don’t use inaccurate information to prove a point.

Of course you can go back farther if you want, to the punch tape reels where bytes of data were stored as rows of 9 holes (the extra one is for parity) and read by using a machine to test for the presence or absence of the holes.

73

God almighty, I bet you’re a blast at parties, or just life in general.

Yes I know about tape reels and punch cards, both of my parents had to use them. You’re a bit insufferable.

74

This one feature that never should have been removed. They were concerned about hacking and crossover. Got that. Just remove open bnet. No cross over.

TCP/IP would still remain for offline peeps to connect and play together.

I mean, seriously, is it that damned hard to figure out?

Simply reinstate tcp/ip, disable open bnet and problem solved.

C’mon guys, it doesn’t take a Phd to figure this out.

The main reason they don’t tell you is that by removing that feature, you are REQUIRED to use their login app and they can invade your privacy and it FORCES you to play online so they can artificially inflate the online player base numbers. You see, a lot of people do not like online play due to lag/game invasion [bots]/PK [easy to fix by making mutual hostile]/bots/spambots/etc. By doing this they force you online only. They know the changes they made killed online play and many people went back to D2LoD because of tcp/ip. They killed the lobby as well. So in order to make the game “look” successful, they redirect you, and force you to play one way and one way only. They can’t have themselves looking bad, can they? LOL.

It’s all a sham. It’s numbers and how to make yourself look good even though you don’t. LOL.

The powers that be combined with the “behind the scenes peeps” have orchestrated this to force online play only. And, as such, make it even more possible to direct you to D2stores, to further increase “the behind the scenes peeps” profits.

It’s power and control guys.

Yet another PERFECT illustration as to you, the player, does not get listened to whatsoever. However, botters and D2stores come out on top yet again. By now, surely, a lot of you see this …

-shortened ladder seasons
-refusal at fixing the unbalanced runeword situation
-refusal to put back TCP/IP
-ruined chat lobby
-refusal to do anything about spambots
-refusal to do anything about bots

… all in favor of botting and d2stores

… non favor the actual players.

  • We ALL paid to have them break the game and apply lipstick to it. And now they want us to spend more money and possibly a subscription fee on yet another game that by their proven track history cannot turn out well.

Worse yet, microsoft is taking over!!! Can it get any worse???

3 Likes
75

But then Blizzard won’t be able to sell you Bnet slots as DLC down the line… >.>

1 Like
76

i can tell you right now that tcp / ip was a large contributor to dupes back in the day, i had actually learned A FEW DIFFERENT methods and tried them myself, they worked… i was able to get offline items into closed battle.net, remember 4 socket 1.08 arkane valor. hello…

one of the methods involved duplicating mass amounts of gold and dumping it on the floor that the game would lag out in a weird way and not really know which server it’s on, then you would sell an item to a vendor and they would duplicate 30-40 of them in which you could purchase it from their vendored items, so i would be buying like 30-40 of these duped items at a time… crazy stuff i tell you… i seen it personally.

77

That was an open Bnet vulnerability that allowed imports from open to closed Bnet, nothing to do with TCP/IP.

Open Bnet =/= TCP/IP.

Even so it was a very brief period in 1.09 in which that occurred, never happened again.

78

oh ya, it was SO BRIEF that no one remembers having occy rings, ith, items, 4os valors, 6os windforce etc etc… SO BRIEF. it took them MONTHS to figure it out, and even longer to get rid of all the crap that was brought in…

we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one because the fact of the matter was this was happening for quite a while. but you obviously know how it was working. LOL. thanks.

79

Yeah I meant the import method itself was brief, patched after like a month or so. The hacked items hung around for a while until the big rust storm.

So 20 years with no hacks/imports from open Bnet, again nothing to do with TCP/IP.

There’d be 0 chance of that happening again since there would be no way to connect or interact with the closed Bnet servers since open Bnet is gone.

1 Like
80

tcp/ip was NOT the culprit. OPEN bnet was the culprit, and it also allowed interserver crossover. open bnet ran on the same servers as closed bnet. tcp/ip is external to bnet.

so, all they have to do is delete closed bnet and reactivate tcp/ip and no probs. But then you won’t be on theri servers, you won’t have to log in under their app, they will have no control over you nor be able to spy on you … as such, you won’t see them allow it.

Aagain, it was open bnet, not tcp/ip that was the culprit.

You were not able to transfer items to closed bnet via tcp/ip unless blizz allowed you to connect to their ip directly. However, by duping in open bnet, as it was on same server as closed bnet, there were methods to “crossover”.

1 Like
81

This is a half-truth rooted in falsehoods. You are either ill informed or trolling at this point. Please stop. If you have a small private network setup with IPv4 you have access to more IP address than you will ever need. Even if you have 5,000 devices on a sprawling network you will have enough IPv4 address and can make that work in a relatively efficient manner.

Let’s be clear.

When I speak of a small private network we are talking usually 20-30 devices. Even if there is a large family gathering, like a family reunion or large wedding. You would be able to make that small network accommodate 500+ devices on a single router. No not all 500 will be playing D2R.

If and/or when a small private network grows very large to 10, 15, 20, 30, 50k devices the network manager/engineer is going to redesign and partition the network to accommodate the needs of those devices. Multiple routers and switches will be employed. IPv4 is still a valid choice for those environments because IPv6 does not provide significant performance gains over IPv4. However, the network manager/engineer in my scenario could switch all devices to IPv6 with relatively little effort.

Switching for the sake of switching does not make sense in all cases and scenarios regardless of your opinion.

IPv6 is an upgrade to the IPv4 standard and could make sense to be deployed on the internet because that is a sprawling, vast collection of networks all interconnected.

What I was asking for was the simplicity of IPv4 for D2R. Basically asking the devs to do not make D2R code dependent on Bonjou/IPv6. Why?

No IPv6 means:

  • no need for a dedicated IPv6 DNS or a broadcast/discover client software (Bonjour)
  • simple IPv4 address (the dotted quad) can be easily typed into D2/LoD and D2R to join Local Area Network (LAN) based off-line multiplayer games

If battle net has glaring weaknesses they should address them because people put their personally identifiable information into battle net accounts and conduct electronic transactions. Please fix the flaws in battle net, but give us IPv4 TCP/IP without any IPv6, Bonjour, or other Apple, Inc. software dependencies.

Please and thank you in advance.

1 Like