We have two identical servers A and B in our office. These two servers are synced together in all aspect. That's if some changes take place in one server then it will take effect in another server. This has been done to minimize the downtime. Now server A has a public IP address (X.X.X.X) form one ISP. Server B has a public IP address(XX.XX.XX.XX) from a different ISP. Now for some reason IP address X.X.X.X goes down. Now How can we automatically forward traffic to another IP address so website will not go down?
You're basically asking about high availability, you'd have a third server (called load balancer) in front which would sent traffic to either server based on their status. Have a look at a simple setup in here.
can you use DNS-level fail over using https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/dns-failover.html
Related
I'm not sure I've phrased the question correctly but I'll explain a bit more.
I have a server running on a virtual machine on PC1. I can access this through a particular IP address on the same computer.
Now on a different PC2, when I try the same IP address I see the content served by PC1's server. Both computers are on the same network.
I don't really understand how that IP address is serving the same info on PC2. I'm not sure of the mechanics in the background either and it would really help if someone could explain what's happening here.
If you are using a wifi network then it is because of it you can access the content of the server you have created.
You can see the architecture as that of the internet but on a small scale. Your IP addresses are stores in the wifi (routing tables) so that it can send packets accordingly (See hoping and packet transmission). To be precise, each and every individual system maintains a routing table in it. Thus, in order to fetch a particular site, a system sees its routing table. If the particular IP address is present, the router returns it and the system shows that page. On the contrary, if the IP address is not present the router asks the nearby systems/servers for that particular IP address and the phenomenon continues till the IP address is found.
So, when you search for a local server via system B, whose data is in system A, then the router requests all its child systems to search for the particular IP address in their routing tables, and thus you can access the local server via systems connected on the same network.
To add furthermore, since the local servers are known to be locally operated, the router just sends the seek requests to its child systems only and not globally.
I have tried to keep it as simple as possible supposing that you have not learned about computer networks yet.
I have a SIM800C GSM module that I want to use to make a server. I am really confused about knowing the public IP address. In order to make people to connect to any server is that they need the correct public IP address and the correct port, and of course the correct protocol (TCP, HTTP and so on..).
There is already a command to get the local IP address (AT+CIFSR); in case I make a server and I want to let my friends connect to it, I need the public IP address. How do I get it?
I searched on the internet but found nothing.
AT+CIFSR (as well as the standard command AT+CGPADDR) returns your IP as soon as you activate the PDP context. Unfortunately, if it is public or not depends on your operator. In fact, due to the need to face the IPv4 address exhaustion they often perform a Network Address Translation (NAT) that will actually provide a local IP to your device.
As a consequence, your device won't be reachable for communications that are not device-initiated, and you won't able to create a public server at all.
So, that's not a public IP opposed to a local IP: there's just the IP you obtain from the network. If doesn't perform NAT, then the IP you obtain with AT+CIFSR will be the public one.
Design work-around
Usually the NATted IP limitation is faced with a design trick
A wake-up SMS is sent to the device hosting the server. The SMS can either be a basic one (just text containing data relevant to the application) or a special SMS type (Wap Push notifications).
As soon it receives the SMS, the device starts the server and sends some data to the remote peer
This will result in a device initiated communication, so from the network side the NAT will be opened and the device will be temporarily public.
After a certain inactivity time (operator dependent) the NAT will be closed again
"Commercial" solution
If the design solution is not feasible, there's another option involving the purchase of special (and more expensive...) SIMs specific for M2M and IOT applications:
SIMs which will always obtain a public IP
SIMs which will always obtain a public fixed IP
I'm on the client side. There're multiple network interfaces. How can I let different processes use different network interfaces to communicate? Since I want to connect to the same server, routing seems not working here. Also, connect() doesn't have arguments to specify local address or interface as bind() does.
If your goal is to increase bandwidth to the server by using multiple network interfaces in parallel, then that's probably not something you can (or should) do at the application level. Instead, you should study up on Link Aggregation and then configure your computer and networking stack to use that. Once that is working properly, you will get the parallelization-speedup you want automatically, without the client application having to do anything special to enable it.
"The bind() system call is frequently misunderstood. It is used to
bind to a particular IP address. Only packets destined to that IP
address will be received, and any transmitted packets will carry that
IP address as their source. bind() does not control anything about the
routing of transmitted packets. So for example, if you bound to the IP
address of eth0 but you send a packet to a destination where the
kernel's best route goes out eth1, it will happily send the packet out
eth1 with the source IP address of eth0. This is perfectly valid for
TCP/IP, where packets can traverse unrelated networks on their way to
the destination."
More info e.g. here.
That's why you probably misunderstand bind() call.
The appropriate way to bind to physical topology (to some specific interface) is to use SO_BINDTODEVICE socket option. This is done by setsockopt() call.
Source Policy Routing might be helpful.
Try the following steps:
Use iptables to give packets from different process with different marks.
Use iproute2 to route packets with different marks to different table.
In different table, set the default route to different uplink.
The whole process require certain amount of understanding about linux networking.
Here is an example shows how to route all traffic for a user through one specific uplink: http://www.niftiestsoftware.com/2011/08/28/making-all-network-traffic-for-a-linux-user-use-a-specific-network-interface/
You could try follow similar approach by running different process with different user and route traffic from one user to one uplink.
Also you could let processes communicate with the server with different port and mark the traffic by port.
I've read tons of questions about this all over the web, and can't seem to find a solid answer. If I have an iPhone that's running on cellular data and another iOS device on wifi (in two separate locations), is it possible for them to send data to each other directly without sending it first to a web server, then retrieving it? Are the only options sending and receiving from a server/Apple's iCloud? What if I knew the devices' ip addresses? Note that the iPhone has WiFi disabled.
I'm not looking to put this in the app store, it is for personal use. I know NSNotificationCenter isn't an option.
Using the gamekit framework you can send data between two iOS devices. It is easy to implement. Other than that I don't think there is any other way to send data between two iOS devices.
Actually, it IS possible. You may want to google for something called "UDP hole punching" or "TCP hole punching".
The main approach in short: Assuming you got something like a relay server, that is some server in the internet that is publicly addressable from every private LAN that is connected to the www. No you have your two clients A and B in (different) private LANs, with some Network address translation (NAT) going on, that want to establish a peer to peer connection.
First of all both will tell the server their IP address and the port they have in their own LAN. In the UDP or TCP packet, the server will find the public address and port of the device (or the NAT (router)). So the server knows the private and the public IP address as well as the ports.
If now A wants to communicate with B, it asks the server for help. The server will send a message to B that A wants to communicate with her telling her A's public and private IP and port. A gets back B's public and private information and port.
Now here is where the magic happens. Both clients now send packets out to establish a connection simultaneously to the private and public addresses of the other party and thus punching a whole in their NATs such that incoming connections will not be blocked. Even if one party's connection establishing packets will arrive before this whole is created, the other's packets will get through to such that a connection can be created.
Beware of some NATs that scan the data for IP addresses and translate them as well, but if you encrypt your data or change the appearance of the address (complement, ...) you will be fine.
Now the master question, how can the server communicate with one of the clients without an active connection. Well in this case you can use "connection reversal" and apple's "push notifications". Use the "push notifications" (pn) to tell a client behind a NAT that there is something of interest going on and that it should contact the server. Once it has done that the connection is active and can be used in the previous described fashion.
I hope this helps some people that get to this problem although the post is quite old!
You can only use direct IP address communications if the IP address are publicly reachable IP addresses accessible over the internet, and they are static (enough) so that they are not changing on you regularly as devices get assigned to addresses dynamically. In many (most) cases, that won't be true because your devices will be assigned their IP address dynamically and those addresses are frequently going to be self-assigned IP addresses that aren't publicly addressable.
As others have commented, using Apple-provided mechanisms like iCloud are probably the easiest options. If that's not something you'd like to entertain, there are probably ways to make use of a dynamic DNS service like DynDNS to manage the actual IP addresses of your devices. With something like that you might be able to use a direct IP connection between devices based on a named DNS lookup. You'd probably have to jump through some hoops to make that happen though and I'm not sure you'd want to go to that extent.
I think that Bluetooth would be a good option for you
What could cause IP-addresses to be different in one computer?
My Perl variable $ENV{'REMOTE_ADDR'} differs all the time. What could cause this to happen?
Most people do not have fixed IP addresses. They may change daily, or when their connection to their ISP is reset, or all the time if they are behind some kind of proxying layer that may route requests through more than one system.
REMOTE_ADDR refers to the client address, so would be different if you have multiple clients.
If you are testing with one client, perhaps your network interface has multiple IP addresses or you're observing this behavior over time when your IP has changed due to DHCP?