i agree with j.m... be design you are wanting to play games via a p2p method, you NEED to give and take equally... as others have explained it isn't exactly a 100% open design, you still have to punch a connection through the nat via your own box, so it isn't like you are open to the internet.
Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 1476 Location: New York, USA
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 17:08 Post subject:
j.m. wrote:
BTW, this thread is quite laughable. I have never seen someone trying to make their router "strict" NAT for Live purposes and to generally frustrate Xbox Live's attempt to provide the best online experience for all players. Usually, it is the opposite. People who actually want Live, want to make sure they have the maximum upload speed available, lowest latency, and open NAT (just like MS recommends). You may want to reconsider whether Live is the right thing for you.
jm
if you read the read you will see thet XBOX live (or any other computer game) is NOT for me. I will do my BEST to restrict and thwart the XBOX live access to and from my home network.
I will work with BS or anyone else who can help RAISE the bar as far as NAT and firewall capabilities of the DD-WRT platform
BTW, this thread is quite laughable. I have never seen someone trying to make their router "strict" NAT for Live purposes and to generally frustrate Xbox Live's attempt to provide the best online experience for all players. Usually, it is the opposite. People who actually want Live, want to make sure they have the maximum upload speed available, lowest latency, and open NAT (just like MS recommends). You may want to reconsider whether Live is the right thing for you.
jm
if you read the read you will see thet XBOX live (or any other computer game) is NOT for me. I will do my BEST to restrict and thwart the XBOX live access to and from my home network.
I will work with BS or anyone else who can help RAISE the bar as far as NAT and firewall capabilities of the DD-WRT platform
I read the thread. Unless you (or someone in your housegold) are playing games on Xbox Live and/or have people in your Xbox Live friends list, I do not believe you would be seeing the connections you are seeing in the log. What exactly are you doing with your Xbox 360 if not playing games with it?
Also, you can disable the 360's access to Live right there in its Settings. Choose System Blade | Family Settings | Console Controls | Access to Xbox Live | Blocked.
(BTW, since it appears your kid is either playing games online or communicating with his friends through Live, he may not be happy about this. But, it should solve your "problem.")
again, READ the thread. his original post says he has 8 pcs and 2 voip adapters on his network. maybe you think "this thread is quite laughable" but I, like dellsweig, have other priorities for my network that come before video games. I see nothing laughable or unreasonable about his thinking here.
dellsweig, pm brainslayer and inquire about the special qos version for donating members. I beleive it has capability to limit bandwidth per mac or ip address
again, READ the thread. his original post says he has 8 pcs and 2 voip adapters on his network. maybe you think "this thread is quite laughable" but I, like dellsweig, have other priorities for my network that come before video games. I see nothing laughable or unreasonable about his thinking here.
I have read the thread, and it is laughable. I mean that in the sense that the "normal" Xbox Live user starts a thread about how he can best optimize his network, have open NAT, best upload speed, low latency, high QoS priority, etc. Here, we have the opposite. To me, the solution is clear, just disable Xbox Live if you don't like the effect playing online games/using Live has on your network (is the kid online on the 360, all day or what?). What this sounds like is an attempt to give his son the bare minimum bandwidth and priority sufficient to be able to play (but not host) games on Live, so that the kid won't complain. Since Live is a P2P network, such an attitude is damaging to the Xbox Live gaming community, not fair to the other players, and won't provide the best Live experience. If you don't like getting "unsolicited" requests via Live (by using Live, you are actually soliciting them), then simply don't use it. (BTW, it is these requests, not use of BW, that is apparently causing dellsweig the most concern).
Of course, feel free to go ahead and try to do what you want, but don't bother asking Microsoft to provide it as a feature. That request is ridiculous and will fall on deaf ears, I assure you.
BTW, I have 2 PCs, 2 Xboxes, one Xbox 360, a VOIP adapter, and 4 ReplayTVs on my network. The Xboxes and VOIP are both at the top of my QoS priority list.
Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 1476 Location: New York, USA
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 22:55 Post subject:
j.m. wrote:
dcd wrote:
again, READ the thread. his original post says he has 8 pcs and 2 voip adapters on his network. maybe you think "this thread is quite laughable" but I, like dellsweig, have other priorities for my network that come before video games. I see nothing laughable or unreasonable about his thinking here.
I have read the thread, and it is laughable. I mean that in the sense that the "normal" Xbox Live user starts a thread about how he can best optimize his network, have open NAT, best upload speed, low latency, high QoS priority, etc. Here, we have the opposite. To me, the solution is clear, just disable Xbox Live if you don't like the effect playing online games/using Live has on your network (is the kid online on the 360, all day or what?). What this sounds like is an attempt to give his son the bare minimum bandwidth and priority sufficient to be able to play (but not host) games on Live, so that the kid won't complain. Since Live is a P2P network, such an attitude is damaging to the Xbox Live gaming community, not fair to the other players, and won't provide the best Live experience. If you don't like getting "unsolicited" requests via Live (by using Live, you are actually soliciting them), then simply don't use it. (BTW, it is these requests, not use of BW, that is apparently causing dellsweig the most concern).
Of course, feel free to go ahead and try to do what you want, but don't bother asking Microsoft to provide it as a feature. That request is ridiculous and will fall on deaf ears, I assure you.
BTW, I have 2 PCs, 2 Xboxes, one Xbox 360, a VOIP adapter, and 4 ReplayTVs on my network. The Xboxes and VOIP are both at the top of my QoS priority list.
To be quite honest
I dont give a crap about the xbox live community
I dont like or care about video games - they are a waste of computer cycles and the braincells of the user
My number one goal is to protect the services on my network and the data on my network. If cost were not a consideration, there is gear that would do excatly this.
I am trying to protect the computers on my network that LEGALLY access data resources (banking, email, web, etc) on the net, that provide VPN access into my secure work environment and that provide Voice services
If the kid suffers slow response on his expensive gameing toy - too bad. If his game toy gives him grief that it is not the best xboxlive resource on the net - then I have succeeded
I suggest you take your xboxlive and - well - I will stop now........
Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 1476 Location: New York, USA
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 22:56 Post subject:
dcd wrote:
again, READ the thread. his original post says he has 8 pcs and 2 voip adapters on his network. maybe you think "this thread is quite laughable" but I, like dellsweig, have other priorities for my network that come before video games. I see nothing laughable or unreasonable about his thinking here.
My number one goal is to protect the services on my network and the data on my network. If cost were not a consideration, there is gear that would do excatly this.
Please explain how the Xbox 360 compromises any of this.
Quote:
If the kid suffers slow response on his expensive gameing toy - too bad. If his game toy gives him grief that it is not the best xboxlive resource on the net - then I have succeeded
Again, why not just disable access to Xbox as I explained above and be done with it?
microsoft doesnt tell users that to play on xbox live they have to donate network resources. in this case you can look at dellsweig as the provider of the network the kids xbox is on, and as the provider why shouldnt he be able to limit it as he sees fit
your attitude is dedicate your network to xbox live or dont use it at all. great solution
Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 1476 Location: New York, USA
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 23:27 Post subject:
dcd wrote:
microsoft doesnt tell users that to play on xbox live they have to donate network resources. in this case you can look at dellsweig as the provider of the network the kids xbox is on, and as the provider why shouldnt he be able to limit it as he sees fit
your attitude is dedicate your network to xbox live or dont use it at all. great solution
BS just sent me a build with the bandwidth control. Not sure if I will load it tonight but I will try it for sure
Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 1476 Location: New York, USA
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 23:46 Post subject:
dcd wrote:
dellsweig, pm brainslayer and inquire about the special qos version for donating members. I beleive it has capability to limit bandwidth per mac or ip address
DCD
I got the DD-WRT version that allows specific bandwidth allocations
