Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been dying to implement a chat server in C and Winsock for a long time now, but I haven't taken the time. Partly, because I'm still unsure of some of the conceptual ideas about building a server on Windows OS'es for something like chat.
Here are some of the issues I've been thinking about :
How will user x connect to my server over a generic LAN
without me relying on them to type in a network address( e.g. address
could be invalid, redirected to a different server, etc. )
If I use broadcasting to solve the above problem, will that be reliable enough for chat?
Will that potentially DDos a LAN since the packets will be be forcibly handled on every machine and may take a lot of bandwidth if enough people join?
What is the difference between multicasting and broadcasting? Is multicasting truly superior?
Etc.
Per request, my definition of reliability would be that I can get most of the data consistently in sent packets. In other words, I don't mind a few dropped packets, but I do mind if the data gets messed up quite a lot along the way.
Currently, I have a lot more questions than answers, but the main point I'm getting at is this :
What is the safest and most reliable way of implementing a chat over a LAN in C and Winsock?
How will user x connect to my server over a generic LAN without me relying
on them to type in a network address( e.g. address could be
invalid, redirected to a different server, etc. )
Use a closed list of known servers, or use some broadcast based autodiscovery system.
If I use broadcasting to solve the above problem, will that be reliable
enough for chat?
Define your requirements for reliability.
Will that potentially DDos a LAN since the packets will be be forcibly
handled on every machine and may take a lot of bandwidth if enough
people join?
It's a chat... the amount of generated packets will be comparatively short and small.
What is the difference between multicasting and broadcasting? Is
multicasting truly superior?
Search the web. There are lots of resources and information about multicasting, most precisely, IP multicasting. In short:
Broadcast delivers to all hosts on a broadcast domain. Multicast delivers to all hosts that have explicity joined a multicast group, which may not be in the same broadcast domain (see last point).
Broadcast forces a switch to forward broadcast packets to all its interfaces. Intelligent switches can benefit from peeking at IGMP packets to know which interfaces multicast packets have to be forwarded to.
Broadcast cannot treepass a broadcast domain. Multicast packets can traverse a router, if it's configured to route multicast (search for M-bone)
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to make a application in C on Linux where there are multiple processes running on one computer, which come from the same binary. It is not exactly defined how many of these processes there will be (2-20). I want them to find all the other running instances of the binary when they start up. The processes should communicate over UDP with Linux Sockets and when one application sends a packet every process should receive it.
At the moment i have set up some basic udp message sending between two clients with fixed predefined ports. The goal ist to have them start up and get some port assigned from the os. The applications then should find other instances of the same binary and communicate with them. How can implement this sort of searching ? At first i tried to make them all listen to some fixed port via SO_REUSEADDR, but then just the last process to start up will receive all traffic. Then i looked into Multi and Broadcasting, but i think i need different ips for that to work.
Thanks in advance
Each instance of your application should create a socket that is bound to the same port. You'll need to set the SO_REUSEADDR on the socket before binding to allow this to happen.
As you've already found, when you have multiple UDP sockets bound to the same port and a unicast packet arrives only one of those sockets will receive the packet. To get around that you'll have to use multicast. If the sockets are all listening on a multicast address and a multicast packet it sent, all sockets will receive the packet. This also has the advantage of working whether or not the processes are on the same host.
After you set SO_REUSEADDR and bind the socket, you'll want to join a multicast group by setting the IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP option. You can use any valid multicast address for this in the 225.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255 range (avoid 232.x.x.x as that is for source specific multicast) and all instances of the app should join the same group.
You should also set the IP_MULTICAST_IF option to set the network interface for outgoing multicast packets, and if you want the app to receive multicast messages that it sent itself, you'll also want to set IP_MULTICAST_LOOP.
I am trying to find out whether the machines in a network are running a certain app. More like, I am trying to resolve addresses of nodes in a network.
I built a small code based on ARP, but it works only on a local network(same subnet). What I want to do is resolve addresses out of the subnet i.e. all other nodes.
I read these answers: UDP broadcast packets across subnets
and Broadcast on different subnets
But they all talk about changing router setting or creating a multicast network.
From what I read for multicasting to work, I need to create a multitask network beforehand. Is it really necessary?
And for changing router setting, does it really have to be a "special" router?
This is all for a college assignment and would be demonstrating it probably on an ad-hoc network or something like that.
I am open to ideas to solve the original problem.
PS:
1. I am a beginner in networking so do excuse me for any fault or misinterpretation.
I am using sockets and C(No other option).
Edit 1:
I am well aware ARP is useless outside the subnet. I mentioned it because I used it and it helped explaining the problem.
Edit 2:
The original problem is:
Building a chat application, nothing fancy sending messages from one point to another, without using a central server of any kind. Not even a hybrid network with a central store is allowed.
i.e. if A and B are two clients, A should directly connect to B and vice versa.
I did some research and decided to use P2P architecture. And now I am stuck to how will A discover address of B. If I know the subnet of B, I can brute force and locate B but since I don't have such information what do I do?
ARP is not intended to be routed outside the local network, where in IPv4, the "local network" typically corresponds to a subnet. You should not expect ARP traffic to transit routers from inside to outside or vise versa.
Similarly, UDP broadcasts generally do not propagate outside the local network, and it's a good thing that they don't, for reasons related to both security and traffic volume.
From what I read for multicasting to work, I need to create a multitask network beforehand. Is it really necessary?
Basically, yes. Your routers need to be configured to support multicasting (which may be their default). All participants need to agree on and join the same multicast group. There might not be a need for any new networking hardware, but multicast communication has its own protocols and network requirements; it is not merely a broadcast that can traverse network boundaries.
And for changing router setting, does it really have to be a "special" router?
If you mean changing router settings so that UDP broadcasts are routed between networks, you do indeed need a router that exposes this capability. But I urge you not to do this, as it will let broadcasts from all other sources, for all other reasons transit the router, too. At minimum, this will significantly increase the noisiness of all networks involved, but it could produce bona fide misbehavior of applications and services other than yours.
The Limited Broadcast (255.255.255.255, which is used by ARP requests as the destination address, and ARP only works for IPv4 on the local LAN) cannot cross a router, and a Network Broadcast (last network address, where the host is all ones) by default cannot cross a router (Directed Broadcast) because it is a security risk (see RFC 2644, Changing the Default for Directed Broadcasts in Routers).
Some routers can be configured to forward directed broadcasts, but this can be dangerous.
Multicast is a form of broadcast. Multicast routing is very different than unicast routing, and every router in a path must be configured for multicast routing. Also, hosts must subscribe to a multicast group before they will even listen for packets from a multicast group. Additionally, there are some multicast groups that all hosts listen for, but those are link-local multicasts that cannot be forwarded off the local LAN.
Adding to what other answers have provided:
ARP is not useful for a system in another subnet. Even if you were able to send an ARP request to a system in the other subnet, and receive its response somehow -- providing you with that system's MAC address -- you could not use it to send a packet to that system because Ethernet does not provide a routing mechanism, and so the system will never see any Ethernet packet you address to it.
If you are simply trying to identify which systems within another IP subnet are live, you can probably do this by other means. Take a look at the nmap command, for example. It supports a wide variety of IP communications methods that will be routed to the other subnet and can often detect what machines are present and which services are available on the machines found.
And you can of course duplicate what nmap does yourself. For example, if you want to find out which systems in subnet 192.168.10.0/24 are listening on TCP port 80, one way is to simply attempt to connect to port 80 on each system in that subnet. In general, there are four answers you may receive back:
Connection success (No error: the machine is present and there is a program listening to that port)
Connection refused (errno ECONNREFUSED: the machine is present but there
is no program listening to that port)
No route to host (EHOSTUNREACH: there is no machine answering to
that IP address)
No response (ETIMEDOUT: several reasons why this can happen; for example, the system could have firewall settings causing it to simply ignore the request)
(And there are other less likely possibilities as well.) Using other IP access methods (ICMP/ping, UDP packets) will have a different matrix of possible results.
As others have explained, multicast mechanisms would only be helpful for discovering a set of cooperating machines that are pre-configured to join a multicast group.
I believe that my question is:
Is there a simple user-mode TCP stack on PC operating systems that could be used to exchange data over a lossy serial link with a Linux-based device?
Here is more context:
I have a Linux-based device connected via a serial link to a PC. The serial link is lossy so data being sent between the two devices sometimes needs to be retransmitted. Currently the system uses a custom protocol that includes framing, addressing (for routing to different processes within the Linux device), and a not-so-robust retransmission algorithm.
On the Linux device side, it would be convenient to replace the custom protocol, implement SLIP over the serial link and use TCP for all communications. The problem is that on the PC-side, we're not sure how to use the host's TCP stack without pulling in general IP routing that we don't need. If there were a user-mode TCP stack available, it seems like I could integrate that in the PC app. The only TCP stacks that I've found so far are for microcontrollers. They could be ported, but it would be nice if there were something more ready-to-go. Or is there some special way to use the OS's built in TCP stack without needing administrative privileges or risking IP address conflicts with the real Ethernet interfaces.
Lastly, just to keep the solution focused on TCP, yes, there are other solutions to this problem such as using HDLC or just fixing our custom protocol. However, we wanted to explore the TCP route further in case it was an option.
It appears that the comments have already answered your question, but perhaps to clarify; No you can not use TCP without using IP. TCP is built on top of IP, and it isn't going to work any other way.
PPP is a good way of establishing an IP connection over a serial link, but if you do not have administrative access on both sides of the computer this could be difficult. 172.16.x, 10.x, and 192.168.x are defined as being open for local networks, so you should be able to find a set of IP addresses that does not interfere with the network operation of the local computer.
From the point of view of no configuration, no dependencies, comping up with your own framing / re-transmit protocol should not be too hard, and is probably your best choice if you don't need inter-operability. That being said kermit, {z,y,z}modem would provide both better performance and a standard to code against.
Lastly, you may be able to use something like socat to do protocol translation. I.e. connect a serial stream to a TCP port. That wouldn't address data reliability / re-transmission, but it may be the interface you are looking to program against.
I've got a little program that needs to communicate between two computers on the same LAN. I'm rather new to networking, but from what I've read it sounds like I want UDP multicasting so that the two computers can discover each other, after which I can establish a TCP connection for actual data communication. I've found this little example for UDP multicasting which I can follow. However, I'm wondering about the multicast group (HELLO_GROUP in that example, which is 225.0.0.37).
How can I know the group I should use? This program will be running on various networks, so I can't hard code one (as far as I know). Do I get the group from the router, and if so, how do I do that?
You can choose any multicast address (224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255) that isn't listed as reserved by IANA.
Its possible (if unlikely) that another program will also be using the same address. You can minimise the chances of this causing any confusion by making the announcement messages your program sends out suitably specific. e.g.
CORNSTALKS-DISCOVERY
HOST: {address:port}
[newline]
This would inform your recipients of the address to use for their TCP connection but should find its first line rejected by any other recipients.
You understood wrong.
What are you talking about is broadcasting. A broadcast UDP datagram is sent to every computer in the subnet. (Technically you send a datagram to the address 255.255.255.255.)
UDP broadcast work inside a specific subnet, but don't cross the subnet boundaties. That is, most of the routers are configured not to route broadcast datagrams (reduce spamming).
OTOH multicast is something completely different. The purpose of multicast is to avoid using TCP (or any other unicast) for data transmission. It's good when you need to send something to many other recipients "at once". Those machine agree preliminary on a specific multicast address (like 225.0.0.37 in your example), and "join" this multicast group. Within a specific subnet everything works pretty similar to broadcast, however in contrast to broadcast the multicast may also cross the subnet boundaries. This is due to the fact that when machines join a multicast group the appropriate routers are notified, and they are capable to route multicast datagrams appropriately.
EDIT:
Conclusion (for clarification).
In order to use a multicast one has to pick a multicast address. This is like choosing a port for the application.
The main purpose of multicast is to deliver content (transmit data) to a number of recipients. It's more efficient than unicast in this case.
A "network discovery" is usually done via broadcast. A multicast can theoretically be used for this as well, but this is like killing a fly with a cannon (because routers should also track the lifetime of the multicast session).
I would suggest you don't use multicast directly.
Rather, use zero-configuration networking. This, in its mDNS/DNS-SD incarnation, is available through Apple's Bonjour library on OS X and Windows, and Avahi on unices (and possibly on OS X and Windows too, not sure).
With DNS-SD, you define a name for your service, then use the library to advertise its availability on a given host, or to browse for hosts where it's available. This is how Macs discover printers, file shares, etc - exactly your use case, i believe. It's a simple but very effective technology. And it's an open standard with a good open source implementation, so it's not some proprietary Apple scarytime.
is it possible to capture some packets in promiscuous mode (e.g. using winpcap) and than force OS (applications) to receive them as they were sent for our MAC?
My observation is following. We can:
capture all network traffic using
promiscuous mode (winpcap)
filter/modify the packets using
firewall-hook/filter-hook
send packets to the network with altered MAC
I am not sure if firewall-hook can access all the packets which are available thanks to promiscious mode. Isn't it on the lower layer? If it can't, the only solution would be to capture desired packets and then resend them to the network with altered MAC?
I am networking novice so please be easy on me :)
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
You have your toes at the line of white hat/black hat hackers. I know that my company actively watches for promiscuous NICs, hunts down the owners and kills (fires) them. Maybe if you ask us what you're trying to do, we can offer some suggestions.
If you're trying to analyze your network, there is software and/or hardware solutions that will probably do a better job. If you're just trying to watch interesting text flow across your network, well ... maybe you're still in college.
First, yes if your interface operates in promiscuous mode then you will receive everything 'on the wire'. Which is already one difficulty, nowadays many (if not all) networks are switched, which means a piece of hardware exterior to your system will already do some filtering before packets arrive at your system, so you'll first need to trick a switch into transmitting those packets to your end (can be done by sending out dummy arps, by configuring the switch, or by bad intent ;-) ).
Then if these packets receive at your system, what do you plan to do with them ? There ethernet frames will carry ip packets, typically with a destination ip address, which is already something which will not be on your host (and if it is, this implies that you will have duplicate ip addresses on your network, causing problems as well.
So the main question is, what do you really really really want to do ?
Once you have recieved a packet, it has already been clean through the protocol stack. I don't think Windows gives you the access into the middle of Winsock that would be required to somehow stick it back in.
More importantly, this is a really dodgy think to be looking to do. Whatever it is you are looking to do, I can guarantee you there is some better way to do it.