As a homework assignment, I wrote UDP server-client application that tries to correct errors in the UDP communication using checksums and through confirming correctly received packets.
The problem is that on localhost, all packets are received without a problem. I tried some packet tampering programs, but they all require communication through network interface.
How to simulate UDP packet loss on localhost loopback address?
UDP is easy to deal with--just write a bit of code in the sender or receiver which drops a certain percentage of the messages, and perhaps occasionally reorders some too.
If you can't modify the actual sender or receiver, it is easy enough to write a third program which simply sits in the middle, forwarding packets with some drops and reordering.
If you're using Linux, you can probably set up iptables to drop packets for you: http://code.nomad-labs.com/2010/03/11/simulating-dropped-packets-aka-crappy-internets-with-iptables/ - this seems like it might work even on loopback ports.
Related
I have a Qt GUI application that uses QTcpSocket to send and receive TCP packets to and from a server. So far I've had success making the TCP socket connections (there are 2 separate socket connections because there are 2 different message sets. Same IP address for both but 2 different port numbers) and sending and receiving packets. Most of the messages that my application sends are kicked off via push-button on the GUI's main window (one message is sent periodically using a QTimer that expires every 1667ms).
The server has a FIFO (128 messages deep) and sends a specific message to my application that communicates when the FIFO is 1/2 full, 3/4 full, and full. It's tedious to test this functionality by just mashing the send button on the GUI so I had the idea of loading a .csv file that could be pre-filled (the message has several different configurable parameters) with what I want to send. Each line gets read and turned into a message and sent on the TCP socket.
From my main window I open up a QFileDialog when a push-button on the GUI is clicked. Then when a .csv file is navigated to and selected the function reads the .csv file one line at a time, pulls out all the individual parameters, fills the message with the parameters, and then sends it out to the socket. Each message is 28 bytes. It repeats this until there are no lines left in the .csv file.
What I am noticing on Wireshark is that instead of sending a bunch of individual TCP packets they are all being put together and sent as one large TCP packet.
When I first tested this out I did not know about the LowDelayOption so when I found the information about it in the documentation for QAbstractSocket I thought "Aha! That must be it! The solution to my problem!" but when I added it to my code it did not seem to have any kind of effect at all. It's still being sent as one large TCP packet. For each socket, I am calling setSocketOption to set the LowDelayOption to 1 in the slot function that receives the connected() signal from the socket. I thought maybe the setSocketOption call wasn't working so I checked this by calling socketOption to get the value of the LowDelayOption and it's 1.
Is there something else I need to be doing? Am I doing something wrong?
Thanks for your time and your help. If it matters I am developing this on Windows and I am using Qt 5.9.1
... send and TCP packets to and from a server.
From this I am getting the vibe that your application relies on a certain amount of data - 'a packet' being received in a single receive call.
You can't really rely on that. Data you send over TCP can also be fragmented on the way. Also in your receiving end TCP implementation multiple packets received from the network may be put in the receiving sockets buffer before you have read the first one, and you have no way of telling which kind of fragments they were originally sent in.
So you should just treat TCP as a pipe through which bytes of data flow with some unknown and potentially variable delay. That variable delay causes data to be received in bigger or smaller chunks at random.
If you want to have a packet structure, you should add a packet header containing at least the packet length to the data you transmit.
I hope this helps.
From QTcpSocket documentation:
TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) is a reliable, stream-oriented, connection-oriented transport protocol. It is especially well suited for continuous transmission of data.
Stream-orientet means that there is no something like datagrams in UDP sockets.
There is only stream of data, and you never know in what parts it will be sent.
TCP protocol gives only reliability and you have to provide message extraction on your own. I.e send message length before each message, or use QDataStream (check
Fortune server and Fortune client for examples).
LowDelayOption from QAbstractSocket::SocketOption
Try to optimize the socket for low latency. For a QTcpSocket this would set the TCP_NODELAY option and disable Nagle's algorithm. Set this to 1 to enable.
It is equavilent of setsockopt with TCP_NODELAY option
First thing is:
The TCP_NODELAY option is specific to TCP/IP service providers.
And it doesn't work for me too :)
MSDN says that they do not recommend to disable Nagle's algorithm:
It is highly recommended that TCP/IP service providers enable the Nagle Algorithm by default, and for the vast majority of application protocols the Nagle Algorithm can deliver significant performance enhancements. However, for some applications this algorithm can impede performance, and TCP_NODELAY can be used to turn it off. These are applications where many small messages are sent, and the time delays between the messages are maintained. Application writers should not set TCP_NODELAY unless the impact of doing so is well-understood and desired because setting TCP_NODELAY can have a significant negative impact on network and application performance.
The question is: Do you really need to send your messages as fast as possible?
If yes, consider using QUdpSocket. Maybe tell us more about messages that you are sending.
I've created a packet socket
m_socket = socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, htons(ETH_P_ALL));
and attached a TX ring buffer. I fill out ethernet, ip and udp headers correctly and things work out great until the source and destination MACs happen to be equal. Then netcat (or any other utility/udp receivers) fails to receive the packet I sent. The packet is being sent according to tcpdump though.
I read somewhere that any network device would simply just ignore packets like this, but I still see this behavior on the loopback interface (why doesn't it loop back in this case?).
I only control the sender and due to performance reasons this is the way to go. However, one of the recipients may be located on the same computer and in this case either lo or eth0 will be used (depends on configuration).
How can I force the interface to not ignore these packets?
EDIT:
Using a raw packet socket socket for receiving shows that I do get both outgoing (PACKET_OUTGOING) and incomming (PACKET_HOST). However, using a more 'regular' UDP socket for receiving does not catch anything at all.
This seems to be to some odd behavior with raw sockets. See this related ticket on stackoverflow.
I have a C++ application with GUI that runs (on PC 1) just like a network game, and receives data packets from another computer (2) via WiFi (ad-hoc, so it's quite reliable) at fairly regular intervals (like 40ms), once per loop on program (2). I use send/read.
Here is the problem:
- Packets are not always fully sent (but apparently you can simply keep send()ing the remaining data until all is sent, and thats works well)
- More importantly, packets are stacked in the socket during (1)'s loop until the read() occurs, and then there is no way to distinguish packets in the big stream of data, or know if you were already in the middle of a packet.
I tried to fix this with ID headers (you find an ID as first bytes and you know the length of the packet), but I often get lost (unknown ID : we are not at the beginning of the packet) and am forced to ignore all the remaining data.
So my question is:
Why do packets stack? (generally I have 400B of data whereas my packets are <100B long and fps (1) and (2) are not very different)
How can I have a more reliable way to receive actual packets, say, 80% of packets (discarding packet loss, it's not a question of UDP/TCP)?
Would a separate thread for receiving packets work? (on (1), the server)
How do real-time network games to that (including multiple client management)?
Thanks in advance.
(Sorry I do not have the code here, but I tried to be as clear as I could)
Well:
1) UDP transfers MESSAGES, but is unreliable.
2) TCP transfers BYTE STREAMS, and is reliable.
UDP cannot reliably transfer messages. Anything more reliable requires a protocol on top of UDP.
TCP cannot transfer messages unless they are one byte long. Anything more complex requires a protocol on top of TCP.
Why do packets stack? (generally I have 400B of data whereas my packets are <100B long and fps (1) and (2) are not very different)
Because the time to send packets across the net varies, it typically does not make sense to send packets at a high rate, so most networking libraries (e.g. RakNet) will queue up packets and do a send every 10 ms.
In the case of TCP, there is Nagle's algorithm which is a more principled way of doing the same thing. You can turn Nagle's off by setting the NO_DELAY TCP flag.
How can I have a more reliable way to receive actual packets, say, 80% of packets (discarding packet loss, it's not a question of UDP/TCP)?
If you use TCP, you will receive all of the packets and in the right order. The penalty for using TCP is if a packet is dropped, the packets after it wait until that packet can be resent before they are processed. This results in a noticeable delay, so any games that use TCP have sophisticated prediction techniques to hide this delay and other techniques to smoothly "catch up" once the missing packet arrives.
If you use UDP, you can implement a layer on top that gives you reliability but without the ordering if the order of the packets doesn't matter by sending a counter with each packet and having the receiver repeatedly notify the sender of gaps in the counts. You can also implement ordering by doing something similar. Of course, if you enforce both, then you are creating your own TCP layer. See http://www.jenkinssoftware.com/raknet/manual/reliabilitytypes.html for more details.
What you describe is what would happen if you are using TCP without a protocol on top of it to structure your transmitted data. Your idea of using an ID header and packet length is one such protocol. If you send a 4-byte ID followed by a 4-byte length followed by X number of bytes, then the receiver knows that it has to read 4 bytes followed by 4 bytes followed by X bytes to receive a complete packet. It doesn't get much simplier than that. The fact that you are still having problems reading packets with such a simple protocol suggests that your underlying socket reading code is flawed to begin with. Without seeing your actual code, it is difficult to tell you what you are doing wrong.
I am using SDL and Net2 lib for a client-server application.
The problem I am facing is that I am not receiving all of my TCP packets from my client unless I place a delay before sending each packet from client.
Removing the delay I get only one packet.
A TCP connection is a stream of bytes. Your client could send 20 packets of 5 bytes each, and the server read it as one 100-byte sequence. You'll need to split the data up yourself.
Well you're not guaranteed (in regular sockets) to receive all packets at one time, you may have to call your receive function more than once, to receive all data. This is of course depends on your definition of a "packet" are you receiving all of your data?
+1 erik
Although it is not guaranteed to be reliable, you most likely want to use UDP, not TCP. Net2 handles UDP very well. UDP is actually very reliable. UDP is message oriented. UDP messages tend to get sent quickly and get special treatment by routers (not always a good thing :-). UDP is often used in games.
BTW, if you had asked this question on the SDL mailing list, or sent it to me directly, you would have gotten this advice many months ago.
I wrote Net2 and I hang out on the SDL list. I do not hang out here because this place is an infinite time sink.
Bob Pendleton
I don't mean how to connect to a socket. What should I know about UDP programming?
Do I need to worry about bad data in my socket?
I should assume if I send 200bytes I may get 120 and 60 bytes separately?
Should I worry about another connection sending me bad data on the same port?
If data doesnt arrive typically how long may I (typically) not see data for (250ms? 1 second? 1.75sec?)
What do I really need to know?
"i should assume if i send 200bytes i
may get 120 and 60bytes separately?"
When you're sending UDP datagrams your read size will equal your write size. This is because UDP is a datagram protocol, vs TCP's stream protocol. However, you can only write data up to the size of the MTU before the packet could be fragmented or dropped by a router. For general internet use, the safe MTU is 576 bytes including headers.
"i should worry about another
connection sending me bad data on the
same port?"
You don't have a connection, you have a port. You will receive any data sent to that port, regardless of where it's from. It's up to you to determine if it's from the right address.
If data doesnt arrive typically how
long may i (typically) not see data
for (250ms? 1 second? 1.75sec?)
Data can be lost forever, data can be delayed, and data can arrive out of order. If any of those things bother you, use TCP. Writing a reliable protocol on top of UDP is a very non trivial task and there is no reason to do so for almost all applications.
Should I worry about another
connection sending me bad data on the
same port?
Yes you should worry about it. Any application can send data to your open UDP port at any time. One of the big uses of UDP is many to one style communications where you multiplex communications with several peers on a single port using the addressed passed back during the recvfrom to differentiate between peers.
However, if you want to avoid this and only accept packets from a single peer you can actually call connect on your UDP socket. This cause the IP stack to reject packets coming from any host:port combo ( socket ) other than the one you want to talk to.
A second advantage of calling connect on your UDP socket is that in many OS's it gives a significant speed / latency improvement. When you call sendto on an unconnected UDP socket the OS actually temporarily connects the socket, sends your data and then disconnects the socket adding significant overhead.
A third advantage of using connected UDP sockets is it allows you to receive ICMP error messages back to your application, such as routing or host unknown due to a crash. If the UDP socket isn't connected the OS won't know where to deliver ICMP error messages from the network to and will silently discard them, potentially leading to your app hanging while waiting for a response from a crashed host ( or waiting for your select to time out ).
Your packet may not get there.
Your packet may get there twice or even more often.
Your packets may not be in order.
You have a size limitation on your packets imposed by the underlying network layers. The packet size may be quite small (possibly 576 bytes).
None of this says "don't use UDP". However you should be aware of all the above and think about what recovery options you may want to take.
Fragmentation and reassembly happens at the IP level, so you need not worry about that (Wikipedia). (This means that you won't receive split or truncated packets).
UDP packets have a checksum for the data and the header, so receiving bogus data is unlikely, but possible. Lost or duplicate packets are also possible. You should check your data in any case anyway.
There's no congestion control, so you may wish to consider that, if you plan on clogging the tubes with a lot of UDP packets.
UDP is a connectionless protocol. Sending data over UDP can get to the receiver, but can also get lost during transmission. UDP is ideal for things like broadcasting and streaming audio or video (i.e. a dropped packet is never a problem in those situations.) So if you need to ensure your data gets to the other side, stick with TCP.
UDP has less overhead than TCP and is therefore faster. (TCP needs to build a connection first and also checks data packets for data corruption which takes time.)
Fragmented UDP packets (i.e. packets bigger than about half a Kb) will probably be dropped by routers, so split your data into small chuncks before sending it over. (In some cases, the OS can take care of that.) Note that it is allways a packet that might make it, or not. Half packets aren't processed.
Latency over long distances can be quite big. If you want to do retransmission of data, I would go with something like 5 to 10 times the agerage latency time over the current connection. (You can measure the latency by sending and receiving a few packets.)
Hope this helps.
I won't follow suit with the other people who answered this, they all seem to push you toward TCP, and that's not for gaming at all, except maybe for login/chat info. Let's go in order:
Do I need to worry about bad data in my socket?
Yes. Even though UDP contains an extremely simple checksum for routers and such, it is not 100% efficient. You can add your own checksum device, but most of the time UDP is used when reliability is already not an issue, so data that doesn't conform should just be dropped.
I should assume if I send 200bytes I may get 120 and 60 bytes separately?
No, UDP is direct data write and read. However, if the data is too large, some routers will truncate and you lose part of the data permanently. Some have said roughly 576 bytes with header, I personally wouldn't use more than 256 bytes (nice round log2 number).
Should I worry about another connection sending me bad data on the same port?
UDP listens for any data from any computer on a port, so on this sense yes. Also note that UDP is a primitive and a raw format can be used to fake the sender, so you should use some sort of "key" in order for the listener to verify the sender against their IP.
If data doesnt arrive typically how long may I (typically) not see data for (250ms? 1 second? 1.75sec?)
Data sent on UDP is usually disposable, so if you don't receive data, then it can easily be ignored...however, sometimes you want "semi-reliable" but you don't want 'ordered reliable' like TCP uses, 1 second is a good estimate of a drop. You can number your packets on a rotation and write your own ACK communication. When a packet is received, it records the number and sends back a bitfield letting the sender know which packets it received. You can read this unfinished document for more information (although unfinished, it still yields valiable info):
http://gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/
The big thing to know when attempting to use UDP is:
Your packets might not all make it over the line, which means there is going to be possible data corruption.
If you're working on an application where 100% of the data needs to arrive reliably to provide functionality, use TCP. If you're working on an application where some loss is allowable (streaming media, etc.) then go for UDP but don't expect everything to get from one of the pipe to the other intact.
One way to look at the difference between applications appropriate for UDP vs. TCP is that TCP is good when data delivery is "better late than never", UDP is good when data delivery is "better never than late".
Another aspect is that the stateless, best-effort nature of most UDP-based applications can make scalability a bit easier to achieve. Also note that UDP can be multicast while TCP can't.
In addition to don.neufeld's recommendation to use TCP.
For most applications TCP is easier to implement. If you need to maintain packet boundaries in a TCP stream, a good way is to transmit a two byte header before the data to delimit the messages. The header should contain the message length. At the receiving end just read two bytes and evaluate the value. Then just wait until you have received that many bytes. You then have a complete message and are ready to receive the next 2-byte header.
This gives you some of the benefit of UDP without the hassle of lost data, out-of-order packet arrival etc.
And don't assume that if you send a packet it got there.
If there is a packet size limitation imposed by some router along the way, your UDP packets could be silently truncated to that size.
Two things:
1) You may or may not received what was sent
2) Whatever you receive may not be in the same order it was sent.