I'm looking for some networking gurus to help me with a problem. I have many computers running my software which uses UDP multicasting. This works fine if the computers are connected ONLY to one network (network A). My computer (which is also running said software) will listen on port XXXX for the multicasts. This computer has two network cards and when I connect it to another network, network B, my software goes haywire. The problem is that I do not know what network a given multicast came from. And if I send out a multicast, I cannot tell it to use network A instead of network B or vice versa.
My questions:
Is there a way to distinguish packets coming in from different networks??
Is there a way to send a multicast to network A and NOT network B?
I'm using C++ and Win32 sockets. Thanks to anyone that replies.
You should listen for multicast packets on one interface where you joined the group. You should explicitly set the interface used for sending the multicast packets (otherwise they are routed as everything else, default route, etc.). Both are accomplished via setsockopt calls. Here are some links for you:
Multicast programming - talks about setting "send" interface,
IP Multicast Extensions - talks about both "send" and "receive" interfaces.
Disclaimer: the links are admittedly Unix-centric, so your Windows mileage may vary :)
Working on a project with MC UDP on redundant NICs over the last year, we saw a similar problem. After battling it a bit with winsock, our ultimate solution was to prioritize traffic using the DOS command route
route add 224.x.x.x ... [desired gateway] METRIC 1
This ensured that the traffic only went out on the Interface we wanted.
I realize this might not be exactly what you want, but it could at least be a stopgap solution while you implement another fix.
On multihomed hosts you need to join the multicast group via all interfaces sequentially, or via all the ones you care about. If you are interested in network of origin you could use multiple M/C sockets, each bound to a different interface, same port, and each of them joined to the group; then the receiving socket itself tells you which network any incoming traffic comes from.
Related
I'm writing a server that, among other things, needs to be constantly sending data in different multicast addresses. The packages being sent might be received by a client side (an app) which will be switching between the mentioned addresses.
I'm using Perfect (https://github.com/PerfectlySoft/Perfect) for writing the server side, however had no luck using the Perfect-Net module nor using CocoaAsyncSocket. How could i implement both the sender and the receiver using swift? Any could snippet would be really useful.
I've been reading about multicasting and when it comes to the receiver, i've notice that in most languages (i.e. java or c#) the receiver often indicates a port number and a multicast ip-address, but when is the connection with the server being made? When does the socket bind to the real server ip-address?
Thanks in advance
If we talk about the TCP/IP stack, only IP and UDP support broadcasts and multicasts. They're both connectionless, and this is why you see only sending and receiving to special multicast addresses, but no binds and connects. You see it in different languages because (a) protocols are language-agnostic and (b) most implementations put reasonable efforts in trying to be compatible with BSD sockets interface.
If you want that true multicast, you'll need to find a swift implementation of sockets that allow setting options. Usual names for this operation is setsockopt. Multicast sender side doesn't need anything beyond a basic UDP socket (I suggest using UDP, not IP), while sender needs to be added to a multicast group. This Python example pretty much describes it.
However, it's worth noting that routers don't route broadcasts and multicasts. Hence you cannot use it over internet. If you need to use internet in your project, I'd advise you to use TCP - or websockets if your clients are browsers - and send messages to "groups" of them manually.
I guess you actually want Perfect-Kafka or Perfect-Mosquitto - Message Queue which allows a server to publish live streams to the client side subscribers. Low-level sockets will not easily fulfill your requirement.
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 have been working on a local LAN service which uses a multicast port to coordinate several machines. Each machine listens on the multicast port for instructions, and when a certain instruction is received, will send messages directly to other machines.
In other words the multicast port is used to coordinate peer-to-peer UDP messaging.
In practice this works quite well but there is a lingering issue related to correctly setting up these peer-to-peer transmissions. Basically, each machine needs to announce on the multicast port its own IP address, so that other machines know where to send messages when they wish to start a P2P transmission.
I realize that in general the idea of identifying the local IP is not necessarily sensible, but I don't see any other way-- the local receiving IP must be announced one way or another. At least I am not working on the internet, so in general I won't need to worry about NATs, just need to identify the local LAN IP. (No more than 1 hop for the multicast packets is allowed.)
I wanted to, if possible, determine the IP passively, i.e., without sending any messages.
I have been using code that calls getifaddrs(), which returns a linked list of NICs on the machine, and I scan this list for non-zero IP addresses and choose the first one.
In general this has worked okay, but we have had issues where for example a machine with both a wired and wifi connection are active, it will identify the wrong one, and the only work-around we found was to turn off the wifi.
Now, I imagine that a more reliable solution would be to send a message to the multicast telling other machines to report back with the source address of the message; that might allow to identify which IP is actually visible to the other machines on the net. Alternatively maybe even just looking at the multicast loopback message would work.
What do you think, are there any passive solutions to identify which address to use? If not, what's the best active solution?
I'm using POSIX socket API from C. Must work on Linux, OS X, Windows. (For Windows I have been using GetAdapterAddresses().)
Your question about how to get the address so you can advertise it right is looking at it from the wrong side. It's a losing proposition to try to guess what your address is. Better for the other side to detect it itself.
When a listening machine receives a message, it is probably doing do using recvfrom(2). The fifth argument is a buffer into which the kernel will store the address of the peer, if the underlying protocol offers it. Since you are using IP/UDP, the buffer should get filled in with a sockaddr_in showing the IP address of the sender.
I'd use the address on the interface I use to send the announcement multicast message -- on the wired interface announce the wired address and on the wireless interface announce the wireless address.
When all the receivers live on the wired side, they will never see the message on the wireless network.
When there is a bridge between the wired and the wireless network, add a second step in discovery for round-trip time estimation, and include a unique host ID in the announcement packet, so multiple routes to the same host can be detected and the best one chosen.
Also, it may be a good idea to add a configuration option to limit the service to certain interfaces.
We have an application that broadcasts data using UDP from a server system to client applications running on multiple Windows XP PC's. This is on a LAN, typically Gigabit. This has been running fine for some years.
We now have a requirement to have two (or more) of the client applications running on each quad core PC, with each instance of the application receiving the broadcast data. The method I have used to implement this is to give each client PC multiple IP addresses. Each client app then connects to the server using the same port number but on a different IP. This works functionally but the performance for some reason is very poor. My data transfer rate is cut by around a factor of 10!
To get multiple IP addresses I have tried both using two NIC adapters and assigning multiple IP addresses to a single NIC in the advanced TCP/IP network properties. Both methods seem to give similarly poor performance. I also tried using several different manufacturers NICs but that didn't help either.
One thing I did notice is that the data seems to come over more fragmented. With just a single client on a PC if I send 20kBytes of data to the client it almost always receives it all in one chunk. But with two clients running the data seems to mostly come over in blocks the size of a frame (1500 bytes) so my code has to iterate around more times. But I wouldn't expect this on its own to cause such a dramatic performance hit.
So I guess my question is does any one know why the performance is so much slower and if anything can be done to speed it up?
I know I could re-design things so that the server only sends data to one client per PC, and that client could then mirror the data on to the other clients on the same PC. But that is a major redesign and re-coding effort so I'd like to keep that as a last resort.
Instead of creating one IP address for each client, try using setsockopt() to enable the SO_REUSEADDR option for each of your sockets. This will allow all of your clients to bind to the same port on the same host address and receive the broadcast data. Should be easier to manage than the multiple NIC/IP address approach.
SO_REUSEADDR will allow broadcast and multicast sockets to share the same port and address. For more info see:
SO_REUSEADDR and UDP behavior in Windows
and
Uses of SO_REUSEADDR?
I have no experience with sockets nor multiplayer programming.
I need to code a multiplayer mode for a game I made in c++. It's a puzzle game but the game mode will not be turn-based, it's more like cooperative.
I decided to use UDP, so I've read some tutorials, and all the samples I find decribes how to create a client that sends data and a server that receives it.
My game will be played by two players, and both will send and receive data to/from the other.
Do I need to code a client and a server?
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
Thanks, I'm kind of lost.
Read how the masters did it:
http://www.bluesnews.com/abrash/chap70.shtml
Read the code:
git clone git://quake.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/quake/quake
Open one UDP socket and use sendto and recvfrom. The following file contains the functions for the network client.
quake/libs/net/nc/net_udp.c
UDP_OpenSocket calls socket (PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP)
NET_SendPacket calls sendto
NET_GetPacket calls recvfrom
Do I need to code a client and a server?
It depends. For a two player game, with both computers on the same LAN, or both on the open Internet, you could simply have the two computers send packets to each other directly.
On the other hand, if you want your game to work across the Internet, when one or both players are behind a NAT and/or firewall, then you have the problem that the NAT and/or firewall will probably filter out the other player's incoming UDP packets, unless the local player goes to the trouble of setting up port-forwarding in their firewall... something that many users are not willing (or able) to do. In that case, you might be better off running a public server that both clients can connect to, which forwards data from one client to another. (You might also consider using TCP instead of UDP in that case, at least as a fallback, since TCP streams are in general likely to have fewer issues with firewalls than UDP packets)
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
You don't have to, but you might as well -- there's no downside to using just a single socket and a single port, and it will simplify your code a bit.
Note that this answer is all about using UDP sockets. If you change your mind to use TCP sockets, it will almost all be irrelevant.
Do I need to code a client and a server?
Since you've chosen to to use UDP (a fair choice if your data isn't really important and benefits more from lower latency than reliable communication), you don't have much of a choice here: a "server" is a piece of code for receiving packets from the network, and your "client" is for sending packets into the network. UDP doesn't provide any mechanism for the server to communicate to the client (unlike TCP which establishes a 2 way socket). In this case, if you want to have two way communication between your two hosts, they'll each need server and client code.
Now, you could choose to use UDP broadcasts, where both clients listen and send on the broadcast address (usually 192.168.1.255 for home networks, but it can be anything and is configurable). This is slightly more complex to code for, but it would eliminate the need for client/server configuration and may be seen as more plug 'n play for your users. However, note that this will not work over the Internet.
Alternatively, you can create a hybrid method where hosts are discovered by broadcasting and listening for broadcasts, but then once the hosts are chosen you use host to host unicast sockets. You could provide fallback to manually specify network settings (remote host/port for each) so that it can work over the Internet.
Finally, you could provide a true "server" role that all clients connect to. The server would then know which clients connected to it and would in turn try to connect back to them. This is a server at a higher level, not at the socket level. Both hosts still need to have packet sending (client) and receiving (server) code.
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Well, since you're using UDP, you don't really have a choice. UDP doesn't establish any kind of persistent connection that they can communicate back and forth over. See the above point for more details.
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
In light of the above question, your question may be better phrased "should each host listen on the same port?". I think that would certainly make your coding easier, but it doesn't have to. If you don't and you opt for the 3rd option of the first point, you'll need a "connect back to me on this port" datafield in the "client's" first message to the server.