So I know how to broadcast a packet on the LAN (send it to x.x.x.255) IP. I am confused on how to receive the packet on the receiving host. Like i don't know what kind of socket connection I need to use. Please help me. Thanks
You need to use UDP sockets. At receiving side just keep on listening like any normal UDP socket. No special setup is needed.
Related
I am building an application that will deploy in effect on multiple "clients" with a common "server". Clearly I could communicate between each client and the server using a single read-write socket for each client-server link, or a read socket and a write socket per link if I really wanted to.
But what if there are (hopefully good) reasons that the server wants to read from any client, and broadcast back to all? If you have a connectionless protocol like UDP, can the server use only a single read-write socket, or must it use one for reading and one for writing? What about the clients? And does this change if you use a connection-based protocol like TCP?
If you have a connectionless protocol like UDP, can the server use only a single read-write socket, or must it use one for reading and one for writing? What about the clients? And does this change if you use a connection-based protocol like TCP?
A socket as an endpoint which has at least a local address and port in case of UDP and TCP. Only data received for this ip and port are delivered to the socket and all data send from this socket contain the local ip and port as the source. A socket can be connected, in which case also the destination IP and port is known. With TCP a socket needs to be connected, with UDP not.
This means:
You can use the same unconnected UDP socket to send data to multiple peers (destination is an argument for the sendto function). You cannot do this with TCP, i.e. you need a connected socket for each single peer.
You can receive data from multiple peers on an unconnected UDP socket. You cannot do this with TCP.
The special broadcast address can be used with UDP but not with TCP, since with TCP you need to have a connection between only two clients which is not the case with broadcast.
See also a related question with answer for more information: Bidirectional UDP Multicast
But what if there are (hopefully good) reasons that the server wants
to read from any client, and broadcast back to all?
Well, then you'd probably want to use a UDP socket (either instead of, or in addition to, some TCP sockets) :)
If you have a connectionless protocol like UDP, can the server use
only a single read-write socket, or must it use one for reading and
one for writing?
A single UDP socket is sufficient for both reading and writing (although some multithreaded designs might find it easier to use two separate sockets instead; either way will work).
What about the clients?
Clients can also use a single socket for both sending and receive UDP packets, if that's what you're asking.
And does this change if you use a connection-based protocol like TCP?
With TCP sockets you can also use a single socket for both sending and receiving. However you will need one TCP socket for each destination that you want to send or receive to/from. (Contrast this with UDP where a single UDP socket can be used in conjunction with sendto() or recvfrom() to communicate with multiple peers)
As per your requirement, you have two ways :
By using TCP connection only : Server reads message from client and for the broadcasting to all clients,server writes message to all client's TCP sockets(connected to clients) and clients read that message from TCP socket(connected to server).This method requires that client and server knows the IP addresses of each other
By using TCP connection for the client-server direct communication and UDP for broadcasting : In this method,client and server communicates (directly one to one) using TCP connection. For broadcasting the message, server can broadcast the message over the network using UDP socket and clients have UDP broadcast receiver for receiving the broadcast message.
So I see that there are methods provided to specify timeout value while sending data over UDP packets (at least saw that in C#). I was wondering what's the use of that as I thought UDP is a connectionless protocol and all the sender socket has to do is just send the packet without worrying about the packet being actually received. It makes sense to have a timeout on receive, but I am not sure why would you need a timeout on send. Can someone please explain?
That brings up another question, is UDP send blocking? (I would say not). If yes, what things does it get "blocked" on?
Thanks in advance.
Both questions have the same answer. send() just copies the datagram to the socket send buffer, which is then sent to the network by the OS in the background. If the buffer is full, it blocks. For UDP the buffer can fill up if you are sending datagrams faster than the OS can write them to the network.
Sockets can be either blocking (default) or non-blocking, whether they are TCP or UDP.
I'm trying to find a way for client to know socket server ip:port, without explicitly defining it. Generally I have a socket server running on portable device that's connect to network over DHCP (via WiFi), and ideally clients should be able to find it automaticaly.
So I guess a question is whether socket server can somehow broadcast it's address over local network? I think UPnP can do this, but I'd rather not get into it.
I'm quite sure that this question was asked on Stack lot's of times, but I could find proper keywords to search for it.
One method of doing this is via UDP broadcast packets. See beej's guide if you're using BSD sockets. And here is Microsoft's version of the same.
Assuming all the clients of the application are on the same side of a router then a broadcast address of 255.255.255.255 (or ff02::1 for IPv6) should be more than adequate.
Multicast is another option, but if this is a LAN-only thing I don't think that's necessary.
Suggestion
Pick a UDP port number (say for the sake of an example we pick 1667). The client should listen to UDP messages on 255.255.255.255:1667 (or whatever the equivalent is. e.g.: IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, 1667)). The server should broadcast messages on the same address.
Format Suggestion
UDP Packet: First four bytes as a magic number, next four bytes an IPv4 address (and you might want to add other things like a server name).
The magic number is just in case there is a collision with another application using the same port. Check both the length of the packet and the magic number.
Server would broadcast the packet at something like 30 second time intervals. (Alternatively you could have the server send a response only when a client sends a request via broadcast.)
Some options are:
DNS-SD (which seems to translate to "Apple Bonjour"): it has libraries on macOS, but it needs to install the Bonjour service on Windows. I don't know the Linux situation for this. So, it's multi-platform but you need external libraries.
UDP broadcast or multicast
Some other fancy things like Ethernet broadcast, raw sockets, ...
For your case (clients on a WiFi network), a UDP broadcast packet would suffice, it's multi-platform, and not too difficult to implement from the ground up.
Choosing this option, the two main algorithms are:
The server(s) send an "announce" broadcast packet, with clients listening to the broadcast address. Once clients receive the "announce" packet, they know about the server address. Now they can send UDP packets to the server (which will discover their addresses for sending a reply), or connect using TCP.
The client(s) send a "discover" broadcast packet, with the server(s) listening to the broadcast address. Once the server(s) receive the "discover" packet, it can reply directly to it with an "announce" UDP packet.
One or the other could be better for your application, it depends.
Please consider these arguments:
Servers usually listen to requests and send replies
A server that sends regular "announce" broadcast packets over a WiFi network, for a client that may arrive or not, wastes the network bandwidth, while a client knows exactly when it needs to poll for available servers, and stop once it's done.
As a mix of the two options, a server could send a "gratuitous announce" broadcast packet once it comes up, and then it can listen for "discover" broadcast requests from clients, replying directly to one of them using a regular UDP packet.
From here, the client can proceed as needed: send direct requests with UDP to the server, connect to a TCP address:port provided in the "announce" packet, ...
(this is the scheme I used in an application I am working on)
I'm working on embedded development on UDP socket programming. What all do I need to know? How to make the connection manually? but specifying the ports and memory addresses?
UDP is a connection-less transport. There is no "connection". You specify the destination IP/Port on each individual datagram you send.
UDP doesnot sends any ack back, but will it send any response?
I have set up client server UDP program. If I give client to send data to non existent server then will client receive any response?
My assumption is as;
Client -->Broadcast server address (ARP)
Server --> Reply to client with its mac address(ARP)
Client sends data to server (UDP)
In any case Client will only receive ARP response. If server exists or not it will not get any UDP response?
Client is using sendto function to send data. We can get error information after sendto call.
So my question is how this info is available when client doesn't get any response.
Error code can be get from WSAGetLastError.
I tried to send data to non existent host and sendto call succeeded . As per documentation it should fail with return value SOCKET_ERROR.
Any thoughts??
You can never receive an error, or notice for a UDP packet that did not reach destination.
The sendto call didn't fail. The datagram was sent to the destination.
The recipient of the datagram or some router on the way to it might return an error response (host unreachable, port unreachable, TTL exceeded). But the sendto call will be history by the time your system receives it. Some operating systems do provide a way to find out this occurred, often with a getsockopt call. But since you can't rely on getting an error reply anyway since it depends on network conditions you have no control over, it's generally best to ignore it.
Sensible protocols layered on top of UDP use replies. If you don't get a reply, then either the other end didn't get your datagram or the reply didn't make it back to you.
"UDP is a simpler message-based connectionless protocol. In connectionless protocols, there is no effort made to set up a dedicated end-to-end connection. Communication is achieved by transmitting information in one direction, from source to destination without checking to see if the destination is still there, or if it is prepared to receive the information."
The machine to which you're sending packets may reply with an ICMP UDP port unreachable message.
The UDP protocol is implemented on top of IP. You send UDP packets to hosts identified by IP addresses, not MAC addresses.
And as pointed out, UDP itself will not send a reply, you will have to add code to do that yourself. Then you will have to add code to expect the reply, and take the proper action if the response is lost (typically resend on a timer, until you decide the other end is "dead"), and so on.
If you need reliable UDP as in ordering or verification such that TCP/IP will give you take a look at RUDP or Reliable UDP. Sometimes you do need verification but a mixture of UDP and TCP can be held up on the TCP reliability causing a bottleneck.
For most large scale MMO's for isntance UDP and Reliablity UDP are the means of communication and reliability. All RUDP does is add a smaller portion of TCP/IP to validate and order certain messages but not all.
A common game development networking library is Raknet which has this built in.
RUDP
http://www.javvin.com/protocolRUDP.html
An example of RUDP using Raknet and Python
http://pyraknet.slowchop.com/