I am writing a simple sender and receiver program to transit using UDP so it's connectionless, but I am having a problem figuring out whether my receiver program needs to call bind() or the server and/or both. My receiver program(client) will sit in an infinite loop waiting to receive data from the sender(server) and then it will print out the data. I'm not quite sure what bind() does exactly besides associating an address/port with a specific socket. Why is it that I need to call bind()?
You need to call bind(2) so that the OS knows which application to route network packets to. When you call bind with a specific port for a given protocol (e.g. TCP or UDP), you're asking it "whenever you see a network packet on port XXXXX, please give it to me".
Say, for example, that two copies of your program were running, and they both wanted to listen for UDP packets on the same port. If they both call bind on the same port, then one will succeed and one will fail, since the OS can arbitrate who is bound to each port. Then, any packet received on that port will be given to whichever instance of the program succeeded at binding to that port.
when you want to make a socket a fixed address or/and port, you use bind.
See you when developing a Network Application you need to specify "Address and Port" to Bind because if you want to set it for Localhost your application is not able to communicate with the all over the network its only for your system which its communicating.. If you set it with your Network address it's not able to communicate as localhost Its only communicate with the network and If you set it to 0 then It can be use as both for localhost and Network.
Related
I'm attempting to have two daemons running on the same port and IP but one is a server and the other is a client. Is there a method using socket options that would allow each socket to have a copy of the packet and let the daemons filter out the messages based on the protocol? It looks like reuse address blocks the first configured port and reuse port might just balance the packet between the two daemons.
Otherwise, I guess create another daemons to read the socket and send the packets to the correct daemon.
Thanks
You are correct at the end, you will need to have a third part that binds to the port and forwards the packets to the correct daemon.
The other way to do it would be to use three ports and use a firewall to redirect from the front end port to the backend ports; but that is a lot more complicated and not portable. But in the end you could use QOS or something. There is a wide range of possible types of use case behind the word protocol.
If the UDP packets you are receiving are multicast or broadcast packets, then you can set SO_REUSEADDR (and, for BSD-based OS's, SO_REUSEPORT) on the socket (using setsockopt()) before bind()-ing the socket, and then both sockets will receive a copy of each incoming UDP packet. (If the UDP packets are regular old unicast packets, OTOH, then doing the above will result in each received packet being received by only one of the two UDP sockets, which isn't what you want).
Note, however: You refer to the two daemons as being a "client" and a "server" -- the implication of those terms is that the two daemons are going to communicate with each other. If that is the case, then the typical approach would be to have the server-daemon bind to a well-known port number, and the client-daemon could bind to any port number (e.g. it could pass 0 as the port-number to bind(), and let the OS choose an available port-number for it). Then the client-daemon could start the conversation by sending one or more UDP packets to the server's well-known port number, and the server can find out which port the client is sending from (and therefore what port to send reply packets to) by examining the fifth argument of its recvfrom() call. In this case there is no need for the two programs to bind to the same port, and therefore no need for packet-forwarding.
I have a linux computer with a code in C that must communicate in UDP with 4 differents equipments. The computer sends differents commands to each equipment and receives responses, sometimes in parallel ...
I am a perfect beginner, and managed to communicate with one equipment using UDP socket. But now, i'm looking for a way to communicate with all these equipments, what i would like to call "multiple socket", but i don't know where to look/ what word to search to find a way ...
My linux computer is the client and all the equipment servers. I only have one eth port on the computer and will have to use a switch to have access to all the equipment. I would like to create functions like :
sendcmd(IPnumber, PORTnumber, cmd , ...)
readbuff(IPnumber, PORTnumber, buff, ...)
so i can choose which IP will received cmd ... i don't know if it's possible or if i need to open the socket, then close and redo the operation with another IP ...
So, if I ever managed to make myself understood, where should I look for a solution to my problem?
Thank you !
You can use a single UDP socket for your scenario. You can keep the socket open for the lifetime of your application.
UDP is not connection oriented. UDP sockets are also not classified into client sockets and server sockets. UDP sockets are always bound to a local port, either implicitly (typically for pure clients) or explicitly (which is usually the case for servers). In your case you do not care about the port for your UDP client.
To send to your four UDP server you can use sendto(). This lets you specify the destination IP address and port the UDP packet gets sent to.
To receive from your four UDP servers you can use recvfrom(). This will tell the IP address and port where the UDP packet came from.
You most likely want to have a receive loop of some kind. If you want to do anything else in your application you most likely want to either make recvfrom() non-blocking or you want to have the receive loop in its own thread. But this goes beyond your question.
The most important aspect of UDP is that it is not a protocol (despite its name which is misleading). It is one puzzle piece for a protocol. It is a tool to develop your own protocol. But I assume you already have a specific protocol at hand defined by your peripherals.
Currently, I have working, functioning code to pass messages between two programs I have written. Here's the scheme I'm using:
Program A
a_tx_socket -> Send Data on 127.0.0.1, Port A
a_rx_socket -> Receive Data on 127.0.0.1, Port B
Program B
b_tx_socket -> Send Data on 127.0.0.1, Port B
b_rx_socket -> Receive Data on 127.0.0.1, Port A
Note that I call bind() on the sockets that receive data (a_rx_socket and b_rx_socket). Each socket is created with a call to the socket() system call.
Now, for my question... is there a way to get rid of one port? Namely can I send/receive on the loopback address using only one port? How would I make sure that Program A/B does not receive data that it sent? Is this worth exploring for any reason (performance/maintainability/fun/etc)?
Only one process at a time can bind to a given socket address. Subsequent attempts to bind will get EADDRINUSE, meaning that the address is already in use.
For ip addresses, the socket address is made up of the port and the IP address. See 'man 7 ip' for details.
Therefore, you need two ports, because otherwise only one of your two programs would be able to bind (and therefore receive packets).
If your pair of programs is always going to be on the same machine, you might want to use unix domain sockets instead, as they would be more efficient for that use case.
I am writing on UDP server/client application.
I want my single server to handle 40 clients at a time. For this, I want to create 40 dedicated threads, each dedicated for one single client. Since there are 40 threads one for each client, I want to create 40 dedicated sockets as well.
But the problem that:
I don't know what will be the 40 IP addresses to which I shall bind() my sockets. (since as far as I now, I have to bind() to my Server\s IP address.) Normally I bind() to "INADDR_ANY" when there is only single socket.
But what should be the IP addresses at which I should bind() each of my 40 sockets?
Please help me. Any comment/ help is appreciated.
One common way to do this with UDP is:
Server bind() to a well known port.
Client sends the initial packet to that well known port
Server receive the first packet from a client on the well known port.
Server creates a new socket with a random port
Server replies to the client from this new socket.
Client receives the reply, notices it comes from another port than the well known
server port, and uses that port as the destination for further communication.
You'll use the getpeername() call to learn the remote address.
Keep in mind that UDP is connection-less, you'll need some way to signal the end or time out you sockets.
bind only needs the local address, not the remote address.
If you want one socket for each client, then you'll need to use different ports for each (using bind). That way, each client can send its traffic to a dedicated port, and you can have a thread for each socket/port.
It's probably a better idea to only have one socket (and one port) though, and have logic in your code to assign traffic to a thread based on the remote address (retrieved using recvfrom eg.).
The usual way is to bind a single socket and accept incoming connections. Each connection will be assigned a unique socket by accept.
As you are using UDP, I would simply use TCP as described above to let the clients know of their respective server UDP addresses.
Create a single listening socket in a dedicated listening thread.
When it receives a new packet, use the packet's remote addr/port, or put a unique clientID in the packet payload, to uniquely identify the client.
Create a new thread for that client if one does not already exist, pass the packet to that thread for further processing, and go back to listening.
If a given client thread does not receive any packets for awhile, it can terminate itself.
I've not a clear idea about when I have to use the bind() function.
I guess it should be used whenever I need to receive data (i.e. recv() or recvfrom() functions) whether I'm using TCP or UDP, but somebody told me this is not the case.
Can anyone clarify a bit?
EDIT I've read the answers but actually I'm not so clear. Let's take an example where I have an UDP client which sends the data to the server and then has to get a response. I have to use bind here, right?
This answer is a little bit long-winded, but I think it will help.
When we do computer networking, we're really just doing inter-process communication. Lets say on your own computer you had two programs that wanted to talk to each other. You might use pipe to send the data from one program to another. When you say ls | grep pdf you are taking the output of ls and feeding it into grep. In this way, you have unidirectional communication between the two separate programs ls and grep.
When you do this, someone needs to keep track of the Process ID (PID) of each process. That PID is a unique identifier for each process and it helps us track who the "source" and "destination" processes are for the data we want to transfer.
So now lets say you have data from a webserver than you want to transfer to a browser. Well, this is the same scenario as above - interprocess communication between two programs, the "server" and "browser".
Except this time those two programs are on different computers. The mechanism for interprocess communication across two computers are called "sockets".
So great. You take some data, lob it over the wire, and the other computer receives it. Except that computer doesn't know what to do with that data. Remember we said we need a PID to know which processes are communicating? The same is true in networking. When your computer receives HTML data, how does it know to send it to "firefox" rather than "pidgin"?
Well when you transmit network data, you specify that it goes on a specific "port". Port 80 is usually used for web, port 25 for telnet, port 443 for HTTPS, etc.
And that "port" is bound to a specific process ID on the machine. This is why we have ports. This is why we use bind(). In order to tell the sender which process should receive our data.
This should explain the answers people have posted. If you are a sender, you don't care what the outgoing port is, so you usually don't use bind() to specify that port. If you are a receiver, well, everyone else has to know where to look for you. So you bind() your program to port 80 and then tell everyone to make sure to transmit data there.
To answer your hw question, yes, your probably want to use bind() for your server. But the clients don't need to use bind() - they just need to make sure they transmit data to whatever port you've chosen.
After reading your updated question. I would suggest not to use bind() function while making client calls. The function is used, while writing your own server, to bind the socket (created after making a call to socket()) to a physical address.
For further help look at this tutorial
bind() is useful when you are writing a server which awaits data from clients by "listening" to a known port. With bind() you are able to set the port on which you will listen() with the same socket.
If you are writing the client, it is not needed for you to call bind() -- you can simply call recv() to obtain the data sent from the server. Your local port will be set to an "ephemeral" value when the TCP connection is established.
You use bind whenever you want to bind to a local address. You mostly use this for opening a listening socket on a specific address/port, but it can also be used to fix the address/port of an outgoing TCP connection.
you need to call bind() only in your server. It's needed especially for binding a #port to your socket.