I am running RPL-UDP example. By default every udp client is binned with the server on specific port number. It means sending packet in multihop scenario is not possible (i.e. if node which is not directly connected with server can not send message to sever with the help of intermediate node).
I want to implement multihop in this example. How it is possible?
I just tried simple uip_udp_packet_sendto(), this send the packet only on bind server machine, not to preferred if this node is not connected with sever directly.
Related
I want to write a simple program in c++ that use tcp socket to communicate with the same program on another computer in lan.
To create the tcp socket I could make the user write the ip and the port to make the connection. But I also need to be able to autodetect in the local area network if there is any computer also running the program.
My idea was:
when the program is autodetecting for available connection in lan, it will send all ips a message via udp to a specific port, meanwhile it will also keep listening to a port waiting to eventual answer.
when the program on the other computer is opened for lan connection, it will keep listening to the a port in case another computer is trying to detect, then it will send also via udp the response messagee notifying the possibility of connection.
All the security system is another problem for which I don't need answer now.
// Client 1:
// Search for all ips in local network
// create udp socket
// send check message
// thread function listening for answers
// if device found than show to menu
// continue searching process
// Client 2 (host) :
// user enable lan connection
// create udp socket
// thread function listening for detection requests
// if request structure is right send back identification message
// continue listening for request
My question - Is there a more efficient or standard way to do something like that?
Testing whether another computer is listening on a given port is what hackers do all day to try to take over the world...
When writing a software like you describe, though, you want to specify the IP and port information. A reason to search and automatically find a device would be if you are implementing a printer, for example. In that case, as suggested by Hero, you could use broadcasting. However, in that case, you use UDP (because TCP does not support that feature).
The software on one side must have a server, which in TCP parlance means a listen() call followed by an accept() until a connection materialized.
The client on the other side can then attempt a connect(). If the connect works, then the software on the other side is up and running.
If you need both to be able to attempt a connection, then both must implement the client and server (which is doable if you use ppoll() [or the old select()] you know which event is happening and can act on it, no need for threads or fork()).
On my end, I wrote the eventdispatcher library to do all those things under the hood. I also want many computers to communicate between each others, so I have a form of RPC service I call communicatord. This service is at the same time a client and a server. It listens on a port and tries to connect to other systems. If the other system has a lower IP address, it is considered a server. Otherwise, it is viewed as a client and I disconnect after sending a GOSSIP message. That way the client (larger IP address) can in turn connect to the server. This communicator service allows all my other services to communicate without having to re-implement the communication layer between computer over and over again.
so I want to send an int32 (or any 4 bytes data) from one pc to another, the size of the data will always be the same, I don't need any checking to see if both pcs are online or any disconnect function, if pc2 didn't receive the data or he went offline, I just want pc1 to send the data, if pc2 is offline nothing happens and if it's online it store it somewhere.
Most tutorials I've found uses a server way of connecting, so there are 3 pcs, 2 clients and 1 server, client1 sends data to the server and the server sends it to client2, but is there a way to send it directly to client2, as if client2 is the server?
There are two common protocols used to send raw data over an ip based network. They are called TCP and UDP and serve slightly different approaches.
TCP is connection oriented and relies heavily on the server client model. On host acts as a server and accepts incoming requests on a predefined socekt. After the TCP connection is setup, you have a duplex (two-way) stream that you can use to exchange data.
UDP is a packet oriented protocol. One host (usually called the server) listens to imcoming packets and can answer them. No real "connection" is established tough.
You probably want to use UDP. Note that altough this protocol does not establish a connecion, there still needs to be at least one host, that is waiting for incoming data on a predefined port. This one is usually called the "server". However also the client can bind its UDP socket to a specific port and thus can act as a "client" and a "server" during the same time.
You can setup both hosts to listen and send on/to the same preefined port number and achieve a connectionless packetoriented way to exchange data. That way both hosts act as server and client simultaneously.
How you actually implement this, depends on your operating system. On Linux (and other POSIX compatible OSes) you can use standard UDP sockets, on Windows there is some equivalent API. Either way I suggest you to first follow a tutorial on how to program a standard TCP server and client, as most of the operations on the sockets are similar (create the socket, bind it to an address:port, and read/write data from it).
Writing a UDP client-server app in C++ (done that lots of times before in many languages in the past 15 years), but somehow this one is not working correctly.
I cannot post actual code nor minimal reproducible app at the moment but I am willing to pay for live help if anyone is available to help solve this quickly with screensharing.
I think this is a particularity with C++ sockets and the way I am using them in this specific app which is quite complex.
Basically the issue is that the packets sent from the server to the client are not received by the client, only when said client is on a separate nat.
When both in same local networking and using their local IP, everything works as expected.
Here is what I am doing :
Client sendto(...) packets through UDP to the server using a specific server host and port 12345 (and keeps sending these non-stop)
On another thread, client bind(...) on port 12345 and "0.0.0.0" and tries to poll() and recvfrom() in a loop (poll always returns 0 here when client is on a separate nat)
Server bind() on port 12345 and "0.0.0.0" then poll() and recvfrom() in a loop
Upon receiving the first UDP message from a client, it starts a thread for sending
UDP messages back to the client on a new socket, using the
sockaddr_in that it got from the recvfrom() to pass in the sendto() commands.
Result : Server perfectly receives ALL messages from all clients, and sends all messages back to all clients, but any client that is not on the same NAT will never receive any messages (poll() always returns 0).
As far as I understand it, when the client sends a UDP message to the server on a specific remote port (12345 in this case), it will punch a hole in its NAT so that it can receive messages back from the remote server on that port...
I tested five different client network configurations :
Local network with the server, using local IP addresses (WORKS)
Local network with the server while client is using a VPN thus going through a remote NAT (DOES NOT WORK)
Local network with the server but client is using the WAN ip address to connect to the server (DOES NOT WORK)
Client at an actual remote network from a friend's connection, behind a router (DOES NOT WORK)
Client going through a wifi hotspot created using my phone (DOES NOT WORK)
For all tests above, the server was correctly receiving all communications from clients.
I also tried forcing the port to 12345 for the sendto() instead of using the sockaddr_in as set from recvfrom(), same issue.
Am I doing anything wrong ?
If you want to help but need to see actual code, I can do that live with screen sharing and I will pay for the help.
Thanks.
Also, if anyone can point me to a great site where I can pay for VERY QUICK help, please let me know, I don't even bother searching google because I really want actual advice from people who tried these services, not ads trying to rip me off...
Only the original receiver socket is allowed to reply to the client, because it's the client request that opens the port in the NAT. So either use the same socket in the server to receive and reply, or get the port that the second server socket was bound to and transfer it with an initial message through the original server port, so that A can send to it and punch the hole.
It looks so strange to create two half duplex sockets when a socket is a full duplex communication object that I'd go with the first option.
I am doing a TCP client - server simulation. In the simulation, I have created 2 clients and 2 servers. And I have programmed that read requests will go to server 1 and write requests will go to server 2. Thus, the client will always renew it's socket and make a new connection to the servers.
However, after the client has made 66561 times of connections to the server, instead of sending request packets, it will just simply send some empty ACK packets.
I expected both the clients to be able to send up to millions of requests, but currently, both the clients are only able to send up to 13k requests. Can anyone give me tips or advices?
Nagle's algorithm
Solutions:
Do not use small package in your app protocol
Use socket option TCP_NODELAY on both side client/server
Sounds like most previously created connections are still taking the resource (not released from system). From the information you give,
However, after the client has made 66561 times of connections to the server, instead of sending request packets, it will just simply send some empty ACK packets.
Looks like about 1000+ connections are released. Probably because of the 2msl time is due. If this is the case, suggest you explicitly release a connect before you create a new one.
Copy and paste your C/S part code would help the analyse.
I'm developing a peer-to-peer communications network for use over a LAN in an industrial environment. Some messages are are just asynchronous, and don't require a response. Others are request-response. The request messages (and the async messages) are sent to a multicast group, and the replies to requests are sent unicast. Each endpoint, therefore, receives UDP packets that are sent to the multicast group, and also receives messages that are just sent to it using plain unicast.
So far it's working fine, but there doesn't seem to be any way in boost::asio to find out the destination address of a received UDP packet (using socket.async_receive_from) - whether it was sent to the multicast group or the actual interface. I can use the contents of the message to infer whether it was sent multicast or unicast, but it would be nice to be able to also check the destination address.
We are currently using Windows 7, but will be transitioning to Linux in the future.
Is there a way to find the destination address of a UDP packet received using boost::asio?
Unfortunately this is not possible with boost::asio, and usually is not "the way to do" it, as you try to access Transport Layer information at the Application Layer.
So you basically have two options:
a) Write non-portable system code with for example IP_PKTINFO or SO_BINDTODEVICE on Linux. Example Code can be found on the boost asio mailing list here
b) use two distinct sockets, one for the multicast and one for the unicast. You therefore need to specify a listen_address other than "0.0.0.0" on each socket.
udp::endpoint(address_v4::from_string("239.192.152.143"), 6771)
This Question on SO might also be helpful: Using a specific network interface for a socket in windows