I'm trying to create a simple Link layer protocol for school.
I've been searching and googling and I understand that Link layer has pas the frame I create to the Physical layer, but how to do in Programming (language c)
is there a function or library that I can use to send my frame directly using Physical layer ? or how should it be done ?
The most common design patterns to develop communication protocols are the Protocol Stack Design Pattern and the Protocol Layer Design Pattern. Take a look at it. The links have some example code.
In summary it works as following:
Communication Upper Layer to Lower Layer: use function parameters
Communication Lower Layer to Upper Layer: use callback functions
Designing protocols is not trivial and you should keep it simple in the first approaches.
you need to use a sockets code ,A socket is one end-point of a two-way communication link between two programs running on the network link. Socket classes are used to represent the connection between a client program and a server program. you do not need to program the physical layer, the OS care with .
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/java/java_networking.htm
Related
I am trying to implement a method which a client behind a NAT can reach my video/audio encoder device connected to another LAN (behind another NAT), and then my device streams Video and Audio to that client.
Is there anyone who knows how to deal with NAT issue for P2P communication?
I have read and review the UDP hole punching, STUN/TURN/ICE and a few other methods like uPnP protocol and so on. All of them either have uncertainty in transmission or it's different from NAT to NAT or it is complicated to be implemented on my device.
I am wondering if there is a simpler method to handle this thing?! Since I have to do networking things on my device, unlike PC, it is not very strong and I can't expect a lot of computation. Thus I prefer a simple method.
Thanks~
The 'easiest' way would be to have 1 device outside both NATs which both devices connect to and acts as a proxy. From the question you are asking, I think this would be an answer to your problem, AND, that you could probably implement.
I'm building a LoRa network where the server and the end-device need to communicate using a protocol which normally transmits data via UDP. Due to the fact that these two protocols act totally different I need to find a way to combine those two.
One solution I found is to create my own socket API which provides send, receive, bind, ... functions. But here I'm actually struggling.
In which scope do I need to write my socket? Is it enough to just edit the functions and rely on the other given parameters such as the address families? Or must I define my own AF and if so where/how is this achieved.
I'm looking forward to your answers / ideas.
According to the LoRaWAN specification and my limited experience, LoRaWAN is not suitable for such situation. If you still wanna use UDP packets over LoRaWAN, here are some tips for your question.
In which scope do I need to write my socket?
You may use sendUnconfirm function since this function does not need ACK from gateway. And port in LoRaWAN could play the role of bind in UDP socket.
Is it enough to just edit the functions and rely on the other given
parameters such as the address families?
LoRaWAN server has its own features and structure. Usually, a LoRaWAN server is consist of packet_forwarder, LoRaWAN server and LoRaWAN application server. You may use these features to build you own application on LoRaWAN applicaiton server. It could save your a lot of time.
It is highly recommended to read LoRaWAN specification (Get it here) and TTN LoRaWAN wiki to help you get a better understanding in LoRaWAN.
Per http://www.solacesystems.com/blog/kernel-bypass-revving-up-linux-networking:
[...]a network driver called OpenOnload that use “kernel bypass” techniques to run the application and network driver together in user space and, well, bypass the kernel. This allows the application side of the connection to process many more messages per second with lower and more consistent latency.
[...]
If you’re a developer or architect who has fought with context switching for years kernel bypass may feel like cheating, but fortunately it’s completely within the rules.
What are the functions needed to do such kernel bypassing?
A TCP offload engine will "just work", no special application programming needed. It doesn't bypass the whole kernel, it just moves some of the TCP/IP stack from the kernel to the network card, so the driver is slightly higher level. The kernel API is the same.
TCP offload engine is supported by most modern gigabit interfaces.
Alternatively, if you mean "running code on a SolarFlare network adapter's embedded processor/FPGA 'Application Onload Engine'", then... that's card-specific. You're basically writing code for an embedded system, so you need to say which kind of card you're using.
Okay, so the question is not straight forward to answer without knowing how the kernel handles the network stack.
In generel the network stack is made up of a lot of layers, with the lowest one being the actual hardware, typically this hardware is supported by means of drivers (one for each network interface), the nic's typically provide very simple interfaces, think recieve and send raw data.
On top of this physical connection, with the ability to recieve and send data is a lot of protocols, which are layered as well, near the bottem is the ip protocol, which basically allows you to specify the reciever of your information, while at the top you'll find TCP which supports stable connections.
So in order to answer your question, you most first figure out which part of the network stack you'll need to replace, and what you'll need to do. From my understanding of your question it seems like you'll want to keep the original network stack, and then just sometimes use your own, and in that case you should really just implement the strategy pattern, and make it possible to state which packets should be handled by which toplevel of the network stack.
Depending on how the network stack is implemented in linux, you may or may not be able to achieve this, without kernel changes. In a microkernel architecture, where each part of the network stack is implemented in its own service, this would be trivial, as you would simply pipe your lower parts of the network stack to your strategy pattern, and have this pipe the input to the required network toplevel layers.
Do you perhaps want to send and recieve raw IP packets?
Basically you will need to fill in headers and data in a ip-packet.
There are some examples here on how to send raw ethernet packets:
:http://austinmarton.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/sending-raw-ethernet-packets-from-a-specific-interface-in-c-on-linux/
To handle TCP/IP on your own, i think that you might need to disable the TCP driver in a custom kernel, and then write your own user space server that reads raw ip.
It's probably not that efficient though...
I am unable to understand or grasp rather; what it means to program at a lower layer in socket programming. I am used to working with tcp/udp/file system sockets. These are all wrapped around their own protocol specifications ... which as i understand would make it working at the application layer in the stack.
In the project i am on , i have seen some files which are "named" LinkLayer, TransportLayer... but i don't see any more calls other than standard socket calls....send /recv/ seletct...
Does the fact you are setting a socket options mean you are programming at a lower level ? Is it just restricted to it? Or are there other API's which grant you access at the representation in kernel ?
Typically this refers to using SOCK_RAW sockets, which requires you to assemble your own packet headers, calculate checksums, etc. You still use send/recv/etc. but now you are responsible for making sure every bit is in the right place.
You can use SOCK_RAW sockets to implement protocols other than TCP or UDP, or to do things with the Internet protocols that higher-level interfaces don't accommodate (like tweaking the TTL of your packets to implement something like traceroute).
This usually means working on a lower OSI-Layer, for example, not directly sending TCP-streams or UDP-packets, but crafting own IP or even Ethernet packets or other low-layer protocols which would - in normal case - be handled by the operating system.
This can be done done via specific socket options which enable you to receive or send data on any layer, even layer 2 (Data Link).
I have a Linux application that talks TCP, and to help with analysis and statistics, I'd like to modify the data in some of the TCP packets that it sends out. I'd prefer to do this without hacking the Linux TCP stack.
The idea I have so far is to make a bridge which acts as a "TCP packet modifier". My idea is to connect to the application via a tun/tap device on one side of the bridge, and to the network card via raw sockets on the other side of the bridge.
My concern is that when you open a raw socket it still sends packets up to Linux's TCP stack, and so I couldn't modify them and send them on even if I wanted to. Is this correct?
A pseudo-C-code sketch of the bridge looks like:
tap_fd = open_tap_device("/dev/net/tun");
raw_fd = open_raw_socket();
for (;;) {
select(fds = [tap_fd, raw_fd]);
if (FD_ISSET(tap_fd, &fds)) {
read_packet(tap_fd);
modify_packet_if_needed();
write_packet(raw_fd);
}
if (FD_ISSET(raw_fd, &fds)) {
read_packet(raw_fd);
modify_packet_if_needed();
write_packet(tap_fd);
}
}
Does this look possible, or are there other better ways of achieving the same thing? (TCP packet bridging and modification.)
There were some apps I used years ago to do some TCP/IP packet manipulation for testing a firewall: fragoute and fragtest. Looks like they haven't been touched in years, but they might give you some ideas of what to do in your code.
You might want to consider using a LD_PRELOAD library to hook the functions that it uses to send the data out (send(), write() etc).
That wouldn't involve any kernel messing-around at all.
Another option is to NAT the outbound connections to a local proxy which can read the data, make whatever modifications, and send it all out to the real destination (with some options to prevent it being NAT'd again and going round in circles)
You can use the click modular router. It is a software router implemented entirely in C++. Click allows you to capture packets as they pass through elements in the router where you can modify or collect statistics as needed. As a kernel module, you completely override the linux routing mechanism and as a userland binary you simply get a duplicate (as you mention in your post) of each packet from the interface. Packets can be directed through the Click graph by way of pcap filters and a variety of other mechanisms.
If you are headed down the bridge route, I think this provides the most direct support for what you are looking to do as you can use tun/tap, to/from host or to/from device capture methods as you require.