Using C++ I create a single UDP socket, supplying both an IPv4 address and port. I run this on Ubuntu and have both a wlan0 and eth0 interface up and running. Apparently something decides that both interfaces should be used, I appreciate that. Sending and receiving using a different interface does create a kind of a pickle (NAT traversal???) for me though. Using Wireshark I can see packages coming in, but my application does not register them.
To clarify:
I have a tracker which will supply me with a peer. The tracker will also contact that peer to send me a message. In order to overcome NAT traversal issues, I will send a puncture message.
The problem now is that the puncture messages is sent over wlan (I am testing locally with two machines), whereas the messages from the peer are coming in over eth.
So, I think the simplest solution would be to simply use one interface. (Or both one socket)
EDIT:
I will try what is mentioned here on specifying a single interface.
#Barmar, pointed out that UDP sockets may change interface when sendto is called with a destination address that would benefit from it.
I am still fuzzy on the reason for my problem though. Can someone explain why this is an issue in the first place?
EDIT2:
The above mentioned solution of forcing one interface for the socket bind did not work. Apparently the sendto method will choose to ignore this and still go for the other interface if it feels that that will work better.
Does anyone know how to make sure that socket sticks to the interface it was assigned to?
If you need to ensure that UDP replies come from the same address that the request was sent to, the solution is to use multiple sockets. You open one socket for each IP of the server (this may be more than one socket per interface, because of interface aliases), and bind the socket to that IP. Then you use select() or poll() to wait for requests on all sockets at once. When a request comes in on a particular socket, you send the reply out through that same socket, and its source IP will match the original packet's destination.
Related
This is how I receive UDP datagrams (shortened, works great):
namespace ba = boost::asio;
ba::io_service _ioService;
ba::ip::udp::socket _socket(_ioService)
ba::ip::udp::endpoint senderEndpoint;
_socket.async_receive_from(ba::buffer(receiveBuffer, receiveBuffer.size()),
senderEndpoint, &handleReceive);
Is there a way to limit my async_receive_from to receive data from only one remote IP address without consuming the data?
There is a solution that reads the data and throws it away if from wrong remote endpoint. I want to avoid reading it in the first place.
Background: I got multiple client devices with different IP addresses talking to my application (only one IP address). The applications is only interested in talking to one remote client at a time.
Just issue a connect() to that IP address. Don't ask me how to do it in boost::asio, but it's possible at the BSD sockets level. It causes all datagrams from other IP addresses to be discarded, and also lets you use send() instead of sendto(). You can undo it by connecting to INADDR_ANY, I think, anyway it's documented.
First, I want to give thanks for that amazing lib! I love it. A client is connecting himself to a server. The server should save the IP and do stuff with it later on (I really need the IP). I found that answer: http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2010-September/006381.html but I don't understand how I get the IP out of the message (a XREP)... I think I am only able to read the ID, but the IP is managed internally by 0MQ. His second solution suggests to send the IP as part of the message, but I don't understand how to get the "public"-IP. I found that post: Get TCP address information in ZeroMQ
is pass bind a service to an ephemeral port, get a full connection endpoint ("tcp://ipaddress:port")
I don't get how this works. Does he mean something like a web-service?
In my opinion, it would be best to get the IP out of 0MQ (it has the IP already). I would even adjust 0MQ for that, if somebody could point to the place where the IP is saved, couldn't find it. The socket types are not that important, at the moment. I would prefer smth REQ-REP like. Thank you!
Summary:
TL;DR answer to your question is: you can't get IP address of the peer that sent a message, using ZeroMQ API.
Explanation:
ZeroMQ does not expose peer IP address because it is irrelevant for the message based communication that ZeroMQ is designed for. When it is possible for ZeroMQ to get IP address of client that is connecting to server (in example using method described here), it is useless. For a longer explanation here is how it works inside ZeroMQ and any other server implementation.
Server side of the connection does not handle connected clients by the means of the hashtable that maps IP to client, but by keeping track of connected "sockets" (socket descriptors) - when a server accepts (using accept()) a connection, it receives from operating system socket descriptor to use to communicate with connected peer. All server has to do is keep that descriptor around to read() from and write() to that client. Another client that connects to server receives another socket descriptor.
To summarize: even if ZeroMQ would be able to provide you with IP of connected peer, you should not depend on it. ZeroMQ hides from you connection management so you can focus on messaging. Connection management includes reconnections, which may result in a change of IP without changing the actual ZeroMQ socket connected on the other side.
So here's an example of why you might want to get the ip address a message was delivered from: we have a server whose job it is to synchronize updates onto occasionally-connected clients (think mobile devices here, though this is an extreme example of a mobile deivce.)
When the mobile unit comes onto the network, it sends a list of it's firmware files to the server via a dealer-router connection. The server has a list of all applicable firmware files; if the client needs an update it will initiate an update via a separate mechanism.
Since the IPs for the devices can (and do) change, we need to know the IP address associated with the mobile device FOR THIS CONNECTION, i.e. right now.
Yes, we absolutely can have the client send it's IP address in the message, but that's a waste of another n bytes of valuable satellite air time, and while not pure evil, is sure annoying. Zmq already has this information, if it didn't have it, it wouldn't be able to generate replies. The address is in the socket data, there's no reason the message couldn't (optionally, for all you guys who use wired networks and think disconnects are the exception) include a reference to the socket structure so you can get the address out of it. Other than pedantic religiosity, which is far too common in zmq.
The way ZeroMQ is designed there's no information provided on the remote IP. As far as I know you have to manage this through your application by sending that information as a message of some sort.
The messages themselves use an IP-agnostic ID which has more to do with the instance of ZeroMQ running than any particular interface. This is because there may be more than one transport method and interface connecting the two instances.
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
stackoverflow users!
I have an app that has to deal with p2p, and that's how I get to UDP Hole punching. But I ran into troubles with implementation. Hope, you can give me some tips.
I've got server, which works perfect and introduces clients to eachother, but clients can't connect probably because of my small exp working with sockets. So, client algo is:
Create udp socket (socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP);)
Send message to server via sendto function
Use recvfrom locker function to get an answer from server
After those 3 steps I get peer endpoint. Next, I was trying to connect clients in two ways:
Way1:
Use the same socket to send data to peer via sendto function, but passing another sockaddr
Listen with recvfrom locker function (And at that point I'm getting WSAECONNRESET error)
Way2:
Create new socket
Bind it
Use it to send data to peer
Listen
In that way one client fails on binding and another fails on listening with errors WSAEADDRINUSE and WSAECONNRESET. I'm obviously doing something wrong and your help would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
P.S. Wanna share a good article about UDP Hole Punching in order to help those, who is new to this technique: http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/
If you read the documentation for recvfrom(), it says:
WSAECONNRESET
The virtual circuit was reset by the remote side executing a hard or abortive close. The application should close the socket; it is no longer usable. On a UDP-datagram socket this error indicates a previous send operation resulted in an ICMP Port Unreachable message.
Which means your call to sendto() is failing. That makes sense if one or both clients are behind a router. Based on your description (and lack of code), you are not actually performing any hole punching to open up the router(s) to allow client-to-client packets to pass through. You have only sent a message to your server, which allows for client-to-server and server-to-client packets to pass through. A few more packet exchanges between each client and the server are required to perform the hole punching on each end, as described in detail in the article you linked to. Are you actually doing what the article says to do?
I have to develop a software to send same packets to multiple destination.
But i must not use multicast scheme.!!!! ( because my boss is a stupid man )
so, any way, the problem is that:
i have same packets and multiple IP address ( clients) and i can not use multicast
how can i do that in the best way?
i must use c++ as a language and Linux as a platform.
so please help me
Thanx
If your boss said you can't use multicast, maybe he/she has his/her reason. I guess broadcasting is out of the game too?
If these are the requisites, your only chance is to establish a TCP connection with every remote host you want to send packet to.
EDIT
UDP, conversely, would not provide much benefit over multicasting if your application will run over a LAN you are in charge for configuration of, that's the reason I specified TCP.
Maybe you have to describe your scenario a little better.
This could be done with either TCP or UDP depending on your reliability requirements. Can you tolerate lost or reordered packets? Are you prepared to handle timeouts and retransmission? If both answers are "yes", pick UDP. Otherwise stay with TCP. Then:
TCP case. Instead of single multicast UDP socket you would have a number of TCP sockets, one per destination. You will have to figure out the best scheme for connection establishment. Regular listening and accepting connecting clients works as usual. Then you just iterate over connected sockets and send your data to each one.
UDP case. This could be done with single UDP socket on the server side. If you know the IPs and ports of the clients (data receivers) use sendto(2) on the same data for each address/port. The clients would have to be recv(2)-ing at that time. If you don't know your clients upfront you'd need to devise a scheme for clients to request the data, or just register with the server. That's where recvfrom(2) is usefull - it gives you the address of the client.
You have restricted yourself by saying no to multicast. I guess sending packets to multiple clients is just a part of your requirement and unless you throw more light, it will be difficult to provide a complete solution.
Are you expecting two way communication between the client and the server ? in that case choosing multicast may prove complex. please clarify
You have to iterate through the clients and send packets one after another. You may want to persist the sessions if you are expecting response from the clients back.
Choice of UDP or TCP again depends on the nature of data being sent. with UDP you would need to handle out of sequence packets and also need to implement re-transmission.
You'll have to create a TCP Listerner on your server running at a particular port listening for incoming Tcp Client connections (Sockets).
Every time a client connects, you'll have to cache it in some kind of datastructre like a Name value pair (name being a unique name for the client amd value being the Network Stream of that client obtained as a result of the TCP socket).
Then when you are finally ready to transmit the data you could either iterate through this collection of name value pair connections and send them data as byte array one by one to each client or spawm off one thread per connected client and have it send the data concurrently.
TCP is a bulky protocol (due to its connection-oriented nature) and transmission of large data (like videos/images) can be quite slow.
UDP is definitely the choice for streaming large data packets but you'll have to trade-off with the delivery gurantee.