In the case where the source port and destination port of a non-blocking TCP socket are not in agreement(for a p2p application), how does one specify the destination port that the socket will Connect() to?
In case of P2P the clients first connect to torrent to get a list of peers(seeders) and the port number which is open at the peer. The system which wants to download will then connect to the peer using the address and port provided by the tracker.
The peers are not restrictive(generally) and accept connections from any source address or ip
Specifying the destination port of a connection is done in the sockadder-struct that you pass to the connect()-call. Since you don't specify which OS you are working on, in it is difficult to provide a concrete example. However, for both Linux and Windows, you would typically load the sockaddr-struct using getaddrinfo(). A nice Linux-example is provided here, while MS has an example in their official documentation.
Related
Just a curious question about networking socket programming in a Windows Application with C/C++:
How can I tell the connect() function to use a particular source IP and source port values?
After a socket is created, application calls connect() to remote IP and port by using the sockaddr structure.
the connect() function internally selects the source IP and port for the connection.
Rather than the system deciding the source IP and/or port for the connect(), let that be the application's responsibility to decide which source IP and/or port to bind to.
bind() requests port that is not in use so it can claim it and become a server, while connect() wants a port that is already in use, so it can connect to it and talk to the server.
As user stark said, you need to call bind if you want to specify which interface/port combination to use, although if you want next call to bind it to a random available port number, you can opt out from bind() call because client doesn't necessarily has to have a fixed port number.
It is possible to ask the kernel to select a specific port before calling connect(), but if I may ask - why you wouldn't want to kernel to allocate source ports, as far as I know it's not best practice.
How can I tell the connect() function to use a particular source IP and source port values?
Use the socket library's bind() function for that. Yes, you can call bind() before connect() for an outgoing socket. That is a perfectly legitimate operation for both UDP and TCP sockets.
Yes, you can. Indeed there's a reason to do that: In case your routing policy makes your connection to be established from an IP address which is not the one you want to use, you can force in a multihomed/routing host a specific IP address as source by means of bind(2) system call. Another use is to specify a fixed source port for the connection, but this is not as usual as the previous case.
But beware: you can select only one of the already configured IP addresses you have, not any address you can imagine.
I am having troubling using the new bind feature of the QTcpSocket class in Qt5. Any help figuring this out would be appreciated.
I have a multihomed server that contains two NICs each with a separate IP address. I have setup routing on the servers so that sending from the source address is sent out of the appropriate NIC regardless of the target remote address. That is, sending from x.x.x.0 goes out over eth0 and x.x.x.1 goes out over eth1 regardless of who the data is being sent to. These NICs are connected via ethernet to long range Wifi links that are then connected to a switch. These wifi links act as a transparent bridge and can rather be seen as two ethernet cables (but they are limited in bandwidth). The switch is then connected to a computer. The goal is to transfer data between the server and the computer, and to use the two wifi links in parallel to increase bandwidth. Although the server is physically a server, the software has the computer running as the software server (as others connect to it). That is, the physical server (software client) opens TCP sockets and attempts to connect to the listening computer (software server).
I use the bind feature of Qt5 to bind one TCP socket to the eth0 IP address and bind another TCP socket to the eth1 IP address. I have verified this works with other programs like PING or file transfer via SCP. See http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.0/qtnetwork/qabstractsocket.html#bind
When I call bind the call succeeds and subsequent requests for the local IP address returns the correct value. E.g. socket->bind(ip) returns true and then socket->localAddress() equals ip. However, when I call connectToHost the localAddress is lost when it starts the connection attempt and after connecting it has a different localAddress that is not the one I wanted it to have.
Can anyone shed light into what is going on? I am trying to avoid rewriting the software to reverse the roles of software client / server as these programs are quite big. Thanks for the help.
There is an open bug on this in the Qt project bug tracker.
I am working on an application that will receive RTP packets from another local service over UDP. Early in the protocol, I receive a message with the IP address from which I'll be receiving these RTP packets, but the port number will be given as 0 (zero) ... I'm to open my UDP socket using an ephemeral port. My response to the given message will contain the actual port I've opened so the sender can know where to direct the packets.
My networking library is an implementation of sockets with boost::asio. Where can I find clear information on how to open such a socket without specifying a non-zero port i.e. use an ephemeral port? Searching the boost docs for "ephemeral" doesn't give me networking results.
Of course, I'm open to seeing an actual example, but finding good documentation would also be just fine.
Thanks.
I would question using ephemeral ports like that, but ... - you can bind your UDP socket to port 0, then use local_endpoint() to retrieve actual port assigned by the OS.
I have both a client and server application using UDP port 25565.
In order to run these on the same machine, because only one application may bind itself to port 25565, does this mean that it is necessary for me to use two separate ports for transmitting data between the applications?
What I have in mind is the following -
Client -> 25565 -> Server
Client <- 25566 <- Server
Is this the only solution or is there another way of handling this?
Your server application open a port and wait for client to connect.
Client need to know this port in advance so it can establish a connection to the desired service.
Client can use any available ports to initiate this connection (better to use ports > 1000).
The server sees in the incomming packet wich port the client is using, so it will send anwser to it. No need to specify it in your design.
After handshake the TCP/IP connection is then identified by these 4 values : server IP, server port, client IP, client port.
No other connection could have the same four values.
To answer your question. A TCP/IP connection is bi-directional, once established, the server can send data to the client and the other way around.
I would draw the scheme like this :
SERVER port 25565 <-> CLIENT port 25566 (or any other port)
Well, no. Only the server needs to listen on the port 25565 - the client will just connect to that port. There is no reason to specify which client the port should 'use' to connect to that port. Also, once the server has accepted the connection, the port can listen for other requests.
The whole point of separate UDP ports is to eliminate conflicts among applications listening to incoming packets. Changing one of these ports is probably the best solution.
However, if you really want both programs to listen on the same port you will need to use virtual network interfaces such as TUN/TAP (there is a Windows port). Then both applications will bind to the port with tha same number but on the different network interfaces.
TCP standard has "simultaneous open" feature.
The implication of the feature, client trying to connect to local port, when the port is from ephemeral range, can occasionally connect to itself (see here).
So client think it's connected to server, while it actually connected to itself. From other side, server can not open its server port, since it's occupied/stolen by client.
I'm using RHEL 5.3 and my clients constantly tries to connect to local server.
Eventually client connects to itself.
I want to prevent the situation. I see two possible solutions to the problem:
Don't use ephemeral ports for server ports.
Agree ephemeral port range and configure it on your machines (see ephemeral range)
Check connect() as somebody propose here.
What do you thinks?
How do you handle the issue?
P.S. 1
Except of the solution, which I obviously looking for,
I'd like you to share your real life experience with the problem.
When I found the cause of the problem, I was "astonished" on my work place people are not familiar with it. Polling server by connecting it periodically is IMHO common practice,
so how it's that the problem is not commonly known.
When I stumbled into this I was flabbergasted. I could figure out that the outgoing
port number accidentally matches the incoming port number, but not why the TCP
handshake (SYN SYN-ACK ACK) would succeed (ask yourself: who is sending the ACK if
there is nobody doing a listen() and accept()???)
Both Linux and FreeBSD show this behavior.
Anyway, one solution is to stay out of the high range of port numbers for servers.
I noticed that Darwin side-steps this issue by not allowing the outgoing port
to be the same as the destination port. They must have been bitten by this as well...
An easy way to show this effect is as follows:
while true
do
telnet 127.0.0.1 50000
done
And wait for a minute or so and you will be chatting with yourself...
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
hello?
hello?
Anyway, it makes good job interview material.
Bind the client socket to port 0 (system assigns), check the system assigned port, if it matches the local server port you already know the server is down and and can skip connect().
For server you need to bind() socket to port. Once addr:port pair had socket bound, it will no longer be used for implicit binding in connect().
No problem, no trouble.
Note that this solution is theoretical and I have not tested it on my own. I've not experienced it before (or did not realize) and hopefully I won't experience it anymore.
I'm assuming that you cannot edit neither the client source code nor the server source. Additionally I'm assuming the real problem is the server which cannot start.
Launch the server with a starter application. If the target port that the server will bind is being used by any process, create an RST (reset packet) by using raw sockets.
The post below briefly describes what an RST packet is (taken from http://forum.soft32.com/linux/killing-socket-connection-cmdline-ftopict473059.html)
You have to look at a "raw socket" packet generator.
And you have to be superuser.
You probably need a network sniffer as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_socket
http://kerneltrap.org/node/3072 - TCP RST attacks
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-RawIP/lib/Net/RawIP.pm - a Perl module
http://mixter.void.ru/rawip.html - raw IP in C
In the C version, you want a TH_RST packet.
RST is designed to handle the following case.
A and B establish a connection.
B reboots, and forgets about this.
A sends a packet to B to port X from port Y.
B sends a RST packet back, saying "what are you talking about? I don't
have a connection with you. Please close this connection down."
So you have to know/fake the IP address of B, and know both ports X
and Y. One of the ports will be the well known port number. The other
you have to find out. I thnk you also need to know the sequence
number.
Typically people do this with a sniffer. You could use a switch with a
packet mirroring function, or run a sniffer on either host A or B.
As a note, Comcast did this to disable P2P traffic.
http://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair
In our case we don't need to use a sniffer since we know the information below:
So you have to know/fake the IP address of B, and know both ports X
and Y
X = Y and B's IP address is localhost
Tutorial on http://mixter.void.ru/rawip.html describes how to use Raw Sockets.
NOTE that any other process on the system might also steal our target port from ephemeral pool. (e.g. Mozilla Firefox) This solution will not work on this type of connections since X != Y B's IP address is not localhost but something like 192.168.1.43 on eth0. In this case you might use netstat to retrieve X, Y and B's IP address and then create a RST packet accordingly.
Hmm, that is an odd problem. If you have a client / server on the same machine and it will always be on the same machine perhaps shared memory or a Unix domain socket or some other form of IPC is a better choice.
Other options would be to run the server on a fixed port and the client on a fixed source port. Say, the server runs on 5000 and the client runs on 5001. You do have the issue of binding to either of these if something else is bound to them.
You could run the server on an even port number and force the client to an odd port number. Pick a random number in the ephemeral range, OR it with 1, and then call bind() with that. If bind() fails with EADDRINUSE then pick a different odd port number and try again.
This option isn't actually implemented in most TCPs. Do you have an actual problem?
That's an interesting issue! If you're mostly concerned that your server is running, you could always implement a heartbeat mechanism in the server itself to report status to another process. Or you could write a script to check and see if your server process is running.
If you're concerned more about the actual connection to the server being available, I'd suggest moving your client to a different machine. This way you can verify that your server at least has some network connectivity.
In my opinion, this is a bug in the TCP spec; listening sockets shouldn't be able to send unsolicited SYNs, and receiving a SYN (rather than a SYN+ACK) after you've sent one should be illegal and result in a reset, which would quickly let the client close the unluckily-chosen local port. But nobody asked for my opinion ;)
As you say, the obvious answer is not to listen in the ephemeral port range. Another solution, if you know you'll be connecting to a local machine, is to design your protocol so that the server sends the first message, and have a short timeout on the client side for receiving that message.
The actual problem you are having seems to be that while the server is down, something else can use the ephemeral port you expect for your server as the source port for an outgoing connection. The detail of how that happens is separate to the actual problem, and it can happen in ways other than the way you describe.
The solution to that problem is to set SO_REUSEADDR on the socket. That will let you create a server on a port that has a current outgoing connection.
If you really care about that port number, you can use operating specific methods to stop it being allocated as an ephemeral port.