When will a TCP packet be fragmented at the application layer? When a TCP packet is sent from an application, will the recipient at the application layer ever receive the packet in two or more packets? If so, what conditions cause the packet to be divided. It seems like a packet won't be fragmented until it reaches the Ethernet (at the network layer) limit of 1500 bytes. But, that fragmentation will be transparent to the recipient at the application layer since the network layer will reassemble the fragments before sending the packet up to the next layer, right?
It will be split when it hits a network device with a lower MTU than the packet's size. Most ethernet devices are 1500, but it can often be smaller, like 1492 if that ethernet is going over PPPoE (DSL) because of the extra routing information, even lower if a second layer is added like Windows Internet Connection Sharing. And dialup is normally 576!
In general though you should remember that TCP is not a packet protocol. It uses packets at the lowest level to transmit over IP, but as far as the interface for any TCP stack is concerned, it is a stream protocol and has no requirement to provide you with a 1:1 relationship to the physical packets sent or received (for example most stacks will hold messages until a certain period of time has expired, or there are enough messages to maximize the size of the IP packet for the given MTU)
As an example if you sent two "packets" (call your send function twice), the receiving program might only receive 1 "packet" (the receiving TCP stack might combine them together). If you are implimenting a message type protocol over TCP, you should include a header at the beginning of each message (or some other header/footer mechansim) so that the receiving side can split the TCP stream back into individual messages, either when a message is received in two parts, or when several messages are received as a chunk.
Fragmentation should be transparent to a TCP application. Keep in mind that TCP is a stream protocol: you get a stream of data, not packets! If you are building your application based on the idea of complete data packets then you will have problems unless you add an abstraction layer to assemble whole packets from the stream and then pass the packets up to the application.
The question makes an assumption that is not true -- TCP does not deliver packets to its endpoints, rather, it sends a stream of bytes (octets). If an application writes two strings into TCP, it may be delivered as one string on the other end; likewise, one string may be delivered as two (or more) strings on the other end.
RFC 793, Section 1.5:
"The TCP is able to transfer a
continuous stream of octets in each
direction between its users by
packaging some number of octets into
segments for transmission through the
internet system."
The key words being continuous stream of octets (bytes).
RFC 793, Section 2.8:
"There is no necessary relationship
between push functions and segment
boundaries. The data in any particular
segment may be the result of a single
SEND call, in whole or part, or of
multiple SEND calls."
The entirety of section 2.8 is relevant.
At the application layer there are any number of reasons why the whole 1500 bytes may not show up one read. Various factors in the internal operating system and TCP stack may cause the application to get some bytes in one read call, and some in the next. Yes, the TCP stack has to re-assemble the packet before sending it up, but that doesn't mean your app is going to get it all in one shot (it is LIKELY will get it in one read, but it's not GUARANTEED to get it in one read).
TCP tries to guarantee in-order delivery of bytes, with error checking, automatic re-sends, etc happening behind your back. Think of it as a pipe at the app layer and don't get too bogged down in how the stack actually sends it over the network.
This page is a good source of information about some of the issues that others have brought up, namely the need for data encapsulation on an application protocol by application protocol basis Not quite authoritative in the sense you describe but it has examples and is sourced to some pretty big names in network programming.
If a packet exceeds the maximum MTU of a network device it will be broken up into multiple packets. (Note most equipment is set to 1500 bytes, but this is not a necessity.)
The reconstruction of the packet should be entirely transparent to the applications.
Different network segments can have different MTU values. In that case fragmentation can occur. For more information see TCP Maximum segment size
This (de)fragmentation happens in the TCP layer. In the application layer there are no more packets. TCP presents a contiguous data stream to the application.
A the "application layer" a TCP packet (well, segment really; TCP at its own layer doesn't know from packets) is never fragmented, since it doesn't exist. The application layer is where you see the data as a stream of bytes, delivered reliably and in order.
If you're thinking about it otherwise, you're probably approaching something in the wrong way. However, this is not to say that there might not be a layer above this, say, a sequence of messages delivered over this reliable, in-order bytestream.
Correct - the most informative way to see this is using Wireshark, an invaluable tool. Take the time to figure it out - has saved me several times, and gives a good reality check
If a 3000 byte packet enters an Ethernet network with a default MTU size of 1500 (for ethernet), it will be fragmented into two packets of each 1500 bytes in length. That is the only time I can think of.
Wireshark is your best bet for checking this. I have been using it for a while and am totally impressed
Related
I want to do my own very simple implementation of VPN in C on Linux. For that purpose I'm going to capture IP packets, modify them and send forward. The modification consists of encryption, authentication and other stuff like in IPSec. My question is should I process somehow the size of packets or this will be handled automatically? I know it's maximum size is 65535 - 20 (for header) but accoring to MTU it is lesser. I think its because encrypted payload "incapsulated into UDP" for NAT-T is much bigger then just "normal payload" of the IP packet.
Well, I found that there actually 2 ways to handle that problem:
1) We can send big packets by settings DF flag to tell we want fragment out packets. But in this case packet can be lost, because not all the devices/etc support packet fragmentation
2) We can automatically calculate our maximum MTU between hosts, split them and send. On another side we put all this packets together and restore them. This can be done by implementing our own "system" for this purpose.
More about IP packets fragmentation and reassembly you can read here
I'm writing a program with a client and a server I almost achieved it.
At the moment I can execute the server on a port. The client in the same port with the IP adress and the name of the .wav file that I want to read.
Now what I'd like to do is making a timeout between each sendto() so that the client receives the packet and read them well. without that the client receives many packets at once and it losts many of them.
So could someone tell me how it works in UDP, and how to do that ?
making a timeout between each sendto()
I believe that you are asking how to put a small delay between each sendto(). If you open raw wav file and send bytes, there is a good chance that the data will be getting to the client much faster than it can play it. If you want to stream data at the same rate as it is played, send data in chunks, then let the client request the next chunk.
If that is not an option, you can send a chunk of data (i.e. 20ms). Then let the thread sleep for a little less than 20ms then send the next chunk. Sleeps are kind of a hack. Some sort of audio callback would be best on the server. Bottom line is that your client buffer has to be big enough to consume the the amount of data your server is sending.
without that the client receives many packets at once and it losts many of them
I believe that you are asking how to deal with the variety of packet inter arrival rates and the packet losses and out of order packets received. It sounds like you were just sending packets at too fast a rate that your client could handle. You might need a larger buffer on the client.
In any case, with UDP/IP, you have the following scenarios
lost packets
packets arriving out of order
packets arriving in bursts: (each packet will not arrive exactly X ms apart)
To deal with this, you have to minimally have what is know as a dejitter buffer. This is a buffer that collects packets as they arrive and inserts them typically in a ring buffer. The buffer will have to be large enough to buffer up packets that your server is sending. Your client is potentially consuming the packets from the buffer slower than the server is sending them (or vice versa). In order to get packets in the right order and deal with losses, you have to detect it. You can detect losses and out of order arrivals by simply numbering each packet that is sent. As packets arrive you can put them into the buffer into the correct location. If a packet is lost, you need to deal with that with some sort of loss concealment (playing silence, estimating the lost packet, etc.) which is beyond the scope of this question,
The RTP protocol is designed for streaming and is an application protocol that work over UDP.
Since you're using UDP, which is connectionless, you don't really have a way to control the flow of packets unless you implement some kind of acknowledgement mechanism... at which point you might as well be using TCP because it already has that built in.
Although I don't have much experience in network programming, this looks a bit more complicated than it might seem at first glance. So UDP is connectionless. That speeds things up a lot, but there is a price to pay -- off the top of my head, packets can get lost or arrive out of order.
Those are situations you need to handle on the client end. Your client needs to be designed so that it accepts packets as they arrive at an arbitrary rate, skips over those that fail to arrive within a certain time (for live streaming, for buffered that doesn't matter) and takes order into consideration, which means that each packet needs to contain information about its place relative to previous packets.
My appliactions sends through the wire using socket small messages. Each message is around 200 bytes of data. I would like to see my data sent in 2 frames instead of 1. My questions are
How to do that i.e. is there a way to cause TCP to automatically split the buffer in 2 frames?
Do I get the same if I send my buffer in 2 separate writes?
I am using Linux and C.
How to do that i.e. is there a way to cause TCP to automatically split
the buffer in 2 frames?
TCP is a stream communication protocol, all data is continuous. You should split your data by delimiters.
For example, in HTTP protocol each separated request is splited by two \n.
Do I get the same if I send my buffer in 2 separate writes?
No, you will receive them as a one continuous data stream. Frames are meaningless.
Note: Before you receive any data TCP in your application, packets are separated but OS collect and reassemble them. This process is transparent from your application.
Here are a few things you can consider.
TCP does have the PSH flag, that you can set in a packet, that makes TCP push out any buffered data. But this will work somewhat unreliably, because, in theory, data can get combined again on the receiving side. But in practice, you will see the data being delivered separately.
You can't really use "\n" as a delimiter, because it can occur naturally in your data. You have to come up with some kind of a escape sequence to use, and escape all the occurrences of "\n" in the data. This can be painful.
If you need message boundaries, consider a protocol that supports it. Like UDP. But with UDP you lose guaranteed delivery. You will have to roll your own confirmations, retries and what not.
Finally there is SCTP. Less used protocol, but available in the Linux stack at least. It gives you best of both worlds. Message boundaries, guaranteed delivery, guaranteed sequence.
i have a client which sends data to a server with 2 consecutive send calls:
send(_sockfd,msg,150,0);
send(_sockfd,msg,150,0);
and the server is receiving when the first send call was sent (let's say i'm using select):
recv(_sockfd,buf,700,0);
note that the buffer i'm receiving is much bigger.
my question is: is there any chance that buf will contain both msgs? of do i need 2 recv() calls to get both msgs?
thank you!
TCP is a stream oriented protocol. Not message / record / chunk oriented. That is, all that is guaranteed is that if you send a stream, the bytes will get to the other side in the order you sent them. There is no provision made by RFC 793 or any other document about the number of segments / packets involved.
This is in stark contrast with UDP. As #R.. correctly said, in UDP an entire message is sent in one operation (notice the change in terminology: message). Try to send a giant message (several times larger than the MTU) with TCP ? It's okay, it will split it for you.
When running on local networks or on localhost you will certainly notice that (generally) one send == one recv. Don't assume that. There are factors that change it dramatically. Among these
Nagle
Underlying MTU
Memory usage (possibly)
Timers
Many others
Of course, not having a correspondence between an a send and a recv is a nuisance and you can't rely on UDP. That is one of the reasons for SCTP. SCTP is a really really interesting protocol and it is message-oriented.
Back to TCP, this is a common nuisance. An equally common solution is this:
Establish that all packets begin with a fixed-length sequence (say 32 bytes)
These 32 bytes contain (possibly among other things) the size of the message that follows
When you read any amount of data from the socket, add the data to a buffer specific for that connection. When 32 bytes are reached, read the length you still need to read until you get the message.
It is really important to notice how there are really no messages on the wire, only bytes. Once you understand it you will have made a giant leap towards writing network applications.
The answer depends on the socket type, but in general, yes it's possible. For TCP it's the norm. For UDP I believe it cannot happen, but I'm not an expert on network protocols/programming.
Yes, it can and often does. There is no way of matching up sends and receive calls when using TCP/IP. Your program logic should test the return values of both send and recv calls in a loop, which terminates when everything has been sent or recieved.
We have a client/server communication system over UDP setup in windows. The problem we are facing is that when the throughput grows, packets are getting dropped. We suspect that this is due to the UDP receive buffer which is continuously being polled causing the buffer to be blocked and dropping any incoming packets. Is it possible that reading this buffer will cause incoming packets to be dropped? If so, what are the options to correct this? The system is written in C. Please let me know if this is too vague and I can try to provide more info. Thanks!
The default socket buffer size in Windows sockets is 8k, or 8192 bytes. Use the setsockopt Windows function to increase the size of the buffer (refer to the SO_RCVBUF option).
But beyond that, increasing the size of your receive buffer will only delay the time until packets get dropped again if you are not reading the packets fast enough.
Typically, you want two threads for this kind of situation.
The first thread exists solely to service the socket. In other words, the thread's sole purpose is to read a packet from the socket, add it to some kind of properly-synchronized shared data structure, signal that a packet has been received, and then read the next packet.
The second thread exists to process the received packets. It sits idle until the first thread signals a packet has been received. It then pulls the packet from the properly-synchronized shared data structure and processes it. It then waits to be signaled again.
As a test, try short-circuiting the full processing of your packets and just write a message to the console (or a file) each time a packet has been received. If you can successfully do this without dropping packets, then breaking your functionality into a "receiving" thread and a "processing" thread will help.
Yes, the stack is allowed to drop packets — silently, even — when its buffers get too full. This is part of the nature of UDP, one of the bits of reliability you give up when you switch from TCP. You can either reinvent TCP — poorly — by adding retry logic, ACK packets, and such, or you can switch to something in-between like SCTP.
There are ways to increase the stack's buffer size, but that's largely missing the point. If you aren't reading fast enough to keep buffer space available already, making the buffers larger is only going to put off the time it takes you to run out of buffer space. The proper solution is to make larger buffers within your own code, and move data from the stack's buffers into your program's buffer ASAP, where it can wait to be processed for arbitrarily long times.
Is it possible that reading this buffer will cause incoming packets to be dropped?
Packets can be dropped if they're arriving faster than you read them.
If so, what are the options to correct this?
One option is to change the network protocol: use TCP, or implement some acknowledgement + 'flow control' using UDP.
Otherwise you need to see why you're not reading fast/often enough.
If the CPU is 100% utilitized then you need to do less work per packet or get a faster CPU (or use multithreading and more CPUs if you aren't already).
If the CPU is not 100%, then perhaps what's happening is:
You read a packet
You do some work, which takes x msec of real-time, some of which is spent blocked on some other I/O (so the CPU isn't busy, but it's not being used to read another packet)
During those x msec, a flood of packets arrive and some are dropped
A cure for this would be to change the threading.
Another possibility is to do several simultaneous reads from the socket (each of your reads provides a buffer into which a UDP packet can be received).
Another possibility is to see whether there's a (O/S-specific) configuration option to increase the number of received UDP packets which the network stack is willing to buffer until you try to read them.
First step, increase the receiver buffer size, Windows pretty much grants all reasonable size requests.
If that doesn't help, your consume code seems to have some fairly slow areas. I would use threading, e.g. with pthreads and utilize a producer consumer pattern to put the incoming datagram in a queue on another thread and then consume from there, so your receive calls don't block and the buffer does not run full
3rd step, modify your application level protocol, allow for batched packets and batch packets at the sender to reduce UDP header overhead from sending a lot of small packets.
4th step check your network gear, switches, etc. can give you detailed output about their traffic statistics, buffer overflows, etc. - if that is in issue get faster switches or possibly switch out a faulty one
... just fyi, I'm running UDP multicast traffic on our backend continuously at avg. ~30Mbit/sec with peaks a 70Mbit/s and my drop rate is bare nil
Not sure about this, but on windows, its not possible to poll the socket and cause a packet to drop. Windows collects the packets separately from your polling and it shouldn't cause any drops.
i am assuming your using select() to poll the socket ? As far as i know , cant cause a drop.
The packets could be lost due to an increase in unrelated network traffic anywhere along the route, or full receive buffers. To mitigate this, you could increase the receive buffer size in Winsock.
Essentially, UDP is an unreliable protocol in the sense that packet delivery is not guaranteed and no error is returned to the sender on delivery failure. If you are worried about packet loss, it would be best to implement acknowledgment packets into your communication protocol, or to port it to a more reliable protocol like TCP. There really aren't any other truly reliable ways to prevent UDP packet loss.