In bit stuffing why always add non information bits after consecutive 5 bits? Any reason behind that?
Here is some information from tutorialspoint:
Bit-Stuffing: A pattern of bits of arbitrary length is stuffed in the message to differentiate from the delimiter.
The flag field is some fixed sequence of binary values like 01111110. Now the payload can also have similar pattern, but the machine on the network can get confused and misinterpret that payload data as the flag field (indicating end of frame). So, to avoid the machine getting confused, some bits are stuffed into the payload (especially at points where payload data looks like the flag) so as to differentiate it from flag.
I am trying to understand the output of network data captured by tshark using the following command
sudo tshark -i any ‘tcp port 80’ -V -c 800 -R ‘http contains <filter__rgument>' > <desired_file_location>
Accordingly, I get some packets in output each starting with a line something like this:
Frame 5: 1843 bytes on wire (14744 bits), 1843 bytes captured (14744 bits) on interface 0
I have some basic questions regarding a packet:
Is a frame and a packet the same thing (used interchangeably)?
Does a packet logically represent 1 request (in my case HTTP request)? If not, can a request span across multiple packets, or can a packet contain multiple requests? A more basic question will be what does a packet represent?
I see a lot of information being captured in the request. Is there a way using tshark to just capture the http headers and http reqeust body? Basically, my motive of this whole exercise is to capture all these requests to replay them later.
Any pointers in order to answer these doubts will be really helpful.
You've asked several questions. Here are some answers.
Are frames and packets the same things?
No. Technically, when you are looking at network data and that data includes the Layer 2 frame header, you are looking at a frame. The IP packet inside of that frame is just data from Layer 2's point of view. When you look at the IP datagram (or strip off the frame header), you are now looking at a packet.
Ultimately, I tell people that you should know the difference and try to use the terms properly, but in practice it's not an extremely important distinction.
Does a packet represent a single request?
This really depends. With HTTP 1.0 and 1.1, you could look at it this way, though there's no reason that, if the client has a significant amount of POST data to send, the request can't span multiple packets. It is better to think of a single "connection" or "session" as a single request/response. (This is not necessarily strictly true with HTTP 1.1, but it is generally true)
With HTTP 2.0, this is by design not true. A single connection or session is used to handle multiple data streams (requests/responses).
How can I get at the request headers?
This is far too lengthy for me to answer here. The simplest thing to do, most likely, is to simply fire up WireShark, go into the filter bar and type "http." As soon as you hit the dot, you will see a list of all of the different sub-elements that you can look at. You can use these in tshark using the '-Y' option, and you can additionally specify columns that you would like to display (so you can add and remove columns, effectively).
An alternative way to see this information is to use the filter expression button to bring up the protocols selector. If you scroll down to HTTP, you can select it and then see all of the fields that are available.
When looking through these, realize that some of the fields are in the top-level rather than within request or response. For example, content-length appears as a field under http rather than http.request.content_length. This is because content-length is a field common to all requests and responses.
I am broadcasting Hello using one Xbee (say A).....Xbee (say B) and Xbee (say C) are receiving a lot of garbage values before and after Hello.
All the baudrates are 9600...where am I going wrong?
It would help if you posted an example of the data you see, perhaps the hex values of each byte.
My guess is that you've configured the modules for "API mode" which wraps payloads with a header (starting with 0x7E, the character ~) and footer. It's useful for "smart" devices because it supports multiple packet types.
Check your settings, and make sure you're using ATAP=0. You can use XCTU to change the settings, or from a terminal use the escape sequence (1 second pause, +++, 1 second pause then module should respond with OK) to enter command mode. In command mode, first set ATAP0 and then ATWR to save the changes.
I am looking for possible techniques to gracefully handle race conditions in network protocol design. I find that in some cases, it is particularly hard to synchronize two nodes to enter a specific protocol state. Here is an example protocol with such a problem.
Let's say A and B are in an ESTABLISHED state and exchange data. All messages sent by A or B use a monotonically increasing sequence number, such that A can know the order of the messages sent by B, and A can know the order of the messages sent by B. At any time in this state, either A or B can send a ACTION_1 message to the other, in order to enter a different state where a strictly sequential exchange of message needs to happen:
send ACTION_1
recv ACTION_2
send ACTION_3
However, it is possible that both A and B send the ACTION_1 message at the same time, causing both of them to receive an ACTION_1 message, while they would expect to receive an ACTION_2 message as a result of sending ACTION_1.
Here are a few possible ways this could be handled:
1) change state after sending ACTION_1 to ACTION_1_SENT. If we receive ACTION_1 in this state, we detect the race condition, and proceed to arbitrate who gets to start the sequence. However, I have no idea how to fairly arbitrate this. Since both ends are likely going to detect the race condition at about the same time, any action that follows will be prone to other similar race conditions, such as sending ACTION_1 again.
2) Duplicate the entire sequence of messages. If we receive ACTION_1 in the ACTION_1_SENT state, we include the data of the other ACTION_1 message in the ACTION_2 message, etc. This can only work if there is no need to decide who is the "owner" of the action, since both ends will end up doing the same action to each other.
3) Use absolute time stamps, but then, accurate time synchronization is not an easy thing at all.
4) Use lamport clocks, but from what I understood these are only useful for events that are causally related. Since in this case the ACTION_1 messages are not causally related, I don't see how it could help solve the problem of figuring out which one happened first to discard the second one.
5) Use some predefined way of discarding one of the two messages on receipt by both ends. However, I cannot find a way to do this that is unflawed. A naive idea would be to include a random number on both sides, and select the message with the highest number as the "winner", discarding the one with the lowest number. However, we have a tie if both numbers are equal, and then we need another way to recover from this. A possible improvement would be to deal with arbitration once at connection time and repeat similar sequence until one of the two "wins", marking it as favourite. Every time a tie happens, the favourite wins.
Does anybody have further ideas on how to handle this?
EDIT:
Here is the current solution I came up with. Since I couldn't find 100% safe way to prevent ties, I decided to have my protocol elect a "favorite" during the connection sequence. Electing this favorite requires breaking possible ties, but in this case the protocol will allow for trying multiple times to elect the favorite until a consensus is reached. After the favorite is elected, all further ties are resolved by favoring the elected favorite. This isolates the problem of possible ties to a single part of the protocol.
As for fairness in the election process, I wrote something rather simple based on two values sent in each of the client/server packets. In this case, this number is a sequence number starting at a random value, but they could be anything as long as those numbers are fairly random to be fair.
When the client and server have to resolve a conflict, they both call this function with the send (their value) and the recv (the other value) values. The favorite calls this function with the favorite parameter set to TRUE. This function is guaranteed to give the opposite result on both ends, such that it is possible to break the tie without retransmitting a new message.
BOOL ResolveConflict(BOOL favorite, UINT32 sendVal, UINT32 recvVal)
{
BOOL winner;
int sendDiff;
int recvDiff;
UINT32 xorVal;
xorVal = sendVal ^ recvVal;
sendDiff = (xorVal < sendVal) ? sendVal - xorVal : xorVal - sendVal;
recvDiff = (xorVal < recvVal) ? recvVal - xorVal : xorVal - recvVal;
if (sendDiff != recvDiff)
winner = (sendDiff < recvDiff) ? TRUE : FALSE; /* closest value to xorVal wins */
else
winner = favorite; /* break tie, make favorite win */
return winner;
}
Let's say that both ends enter the ACTION_1_SENT state after sending the ACTION_1 message. Both will receive the ACTION_1 message in the ACTION_1_SENT state, but only one will win. The loser accepts the ACTION_1 message and enters the ACTION_1_RCVD state, while the winner discards the incoming ACTION_1 message. The rest of the sequence continues as if the loser had never sent ACTION_1 in a race condition with the winner.
Let me know what you think, and how this could be further improved.
To me, this whole idea that this ACTION_1 - ACTION_2 - ACTION_3 handshake must occur in sequence with no other message intervening is very onerous, and not at all in line with the reality of networks (or distributed systems in general). The complexity of some of your proposed solutions give reason to step back and rethink.
There are all kinds of complicating factors when dealing with systems distributed over a network: packets which don't arrive, arrive late, arrive out of order, arrive duplicated, clocks which are out of sync, clocks which go backwards sometimes, nodes which crash/reboot, etc. etc. You would like your protocol to be robust under any of these adverse conditions, and you would like to know with certainty that it is robust. That means making it simple enough that you can think through all the possible cases that may occur.
It also means abandoning the idea that there will always be "one true state" shared by all nodes, and the idea that you can make things happen in a very controlled, precise, "clockwork" sequence. You want to design for the case where the nodes do not agree on their shared state, and make the system self-healing under that condition. You also must assume that any possible message may occur in any order at all.
In this case, the problem is claiming "ownership" of a shared clipboard. Here's a basic question you need to think through first:
If all the nodes involved cannot communicate at some point in time, should a node which is trying to claim ownership just go ahead and behave as if it is the owner? (This means the system doesn't freeze when the network is down, but it means you will have multiple "owners" at times, and there will be divergent changes to the clipboard which have to be merged or otherwise "fixed up" later.)
Or, should no node ever assume it is the owner unless it receives confirmation from all other nodes? (This means the system will freeze sometimes, or just respond very slowly, but you will never have weird situations with divergent changes.)
If your answer is #1: don't focus so much on the protocol for claiming ownership. Come up with something simple which reduces the chances that two nodes will both become "owner" at the same time, but be very explicit that there can be more than one owner. Put more effort into the procedure for resolving divergence when it does happen. Think that part through extra carefully and make sure that the multiple owners will always converge. There should be no case where they can get stuck in an infinite loop trying to converge but failing.
If your answer is #2: here be dragons! You are trying to do something which buts up against some fundamental limitations.
Be very explicit that there is a state where a node is "seeking ownership", but has not obtained it yet.
When a node is seeking ownership, I would say that it should send a request to all other nodes, at intervals (in case another one misses the first request). Put a unique identifier on each such request, which is repeated in the reply (so delayed replies are not misinterpreted as applying to a request sent later).
To become owner, a node should receive a positive reply from all other nodes within a certain period of time. During that wait period, it should refuse to grant ownership to any other node. On the other hand, if a node has agreed to grant ownership to another node, it should not request ownership for another period of time (which must be somewhat longer).
If a node thinks it is owner, it should notify the others, and repeat the notification periodically.
You need to deal with the situation where two nodes both try to seek ownership at the same time, and both NAK (refuse ownership to) each other. You have to avoid a situation where they keep timing out, retrying, and then NAKing each other again (meaning that nobody would ever get ownership).
You could use exponential backoff, or you could make a simple tie-breaking rule (it doesn't have to be fair, since this should be a rare occurrence). Give each node a priority (you will have to figure out how to derive the priorities), and say that if a node which is seeking ownership receives a request for ownership from a higher-priority node, it will immediately stop seeking ownership and grant it to the high-priority node instead.
This will not result in more than one node becoming owner, because if the high-priority node had previously ACKed the request sent by the low-priority node, it would not send a request of its own until enough time had passed that it was sure its previous ACK was no longer valid.
You also have to consider what happens if a node becomes owner, and then "goes dark" -- stops responding. At what point are other nodes allowed to assume that ownership is "up for grabs" again? This is a very sticky issue, and I suspect you will not find any solution which eliminates the possibility of having multiple owners at the same time.
Probably, all the nodes will need to "ping" each other from time to time. (Not referring to an ICMP echo, but something built in to your own protocol.) If the clipboard owner can't reach the others for some period of time, it must assume that it is no longer owner. And if the others can't reach the owner for a longer period of time, they can assume that ownership is available and can be requested.
Here is a simplified answer for the protocol of interest here.
In this case, there is only a client and a server, communicating over TCP. The goal of the protocol is to two system clipboards. The regular state when outside of a particular sequence is simply "CLIPBOARD_ESTABLISHED".
Whenever one of the two systems pastes something onto its clipboard, it sends a ClipboardFormatListReq message, and transitions to the CLIPBOARD_FORMAT_LIST_REQ_SENT state. This message contains a sequence number that is incremented when sending the ClipboardFormatListReq message. Under normal circumstances, no race condition occurs and a ClipboardFormatListRsp message is sent back to acknowledge the new sequence number and owner. The list contained in the request is used to expose clipboard data formats offered by the owner, and any of these formats can be requested by an application on the remote system.
When an application requests one of the data formats from the clipboard owner, a ClipboardFormatDataReq message is sent with the sequence number, and format id from the list, the state is changed to CLIPBOARD_FORMAT_DATA_REQ_SENT. Under normal circumstances, there is no change of clipboard ownership during that time, and the data is returned in the ClipboardFormatDataRsp message. A timer should be used to timeout if no response is sent fast enough from the other system, and abort the sequence if it takes too long.
Now, for the special cases:
If we receive ClipboardFormatListReq in the CLIPBOARD_FORMAT_LIST_REQ_SENT state, it means both systems are trying to gain ownership at the same time. Only one owner should be selected, in this case, we can keep it simple an elect the client as the default winner. With the client as the default owner, the server should respond to the client with ClipboardFormatListRsp consider the client as the new owner.
If we receive ClipboardFormatDataReq in the CLIPBOARD_FORMAT_LIST_REQ_SENT state, it means we have just received a request for data from the previous list of data formats, since we have just sent a request to become the new owner with a new list of data formats. We can respond with a failure right away, and sequence numbers will not match.
Etc, etc. The main issue I was trying to solve here is fast recovery from such states, with going into a loop of retrying until it works. The main issue with immediate retrial is that it is going to happen with timing likely to cause new race conditions. We can solve the issue by expecting such inconsistent states as long as we can move back to proper protocol states when detecting them. The other part of the problem is with electing a "winner" that will have its request accepted without resending new messages. A default winner can be elected by default, such as the client or the server, or some sort of random voting system can be implemented with a default favorite to break ties.
Has anyone used Google translation API ? What is the max length limit for using it?
The limit was 500... now it is 5000 chars.
source
500 characters
source
At the moment, the throttle limit is 100,000 characters per day. Looks like you can apply to have that limit increased/removed.
I've used it to translate Japanese to English.
I don't believe the 500 char limit is true if you use http://code.google.com/p/jquery-translate/, but one thing that is true is you're restricted as to the number of requests you can make within a certain period of time. They also try to detect whether or not you're sending a lot of requests with a similar period, almost like a mini "denial of service" attack.
So when I did this I wrote a client with a random length sleep between requests. I also ran it on a grid so all the requests didn't come from a single IP address.
I had to translate ~2000 Java messages from a resource bundle from Japanese to English. It worked out pretty nicely, as long as the text was single words. Longer phrases with context came out awkwardly.
Please have look at this link it will give the correct answer at the bottom of the page.
https://developers.google.com/translate/v2/faq
What is the maximum number of characters per request?
The maximum size of each text to be translated is 5000 characters, not including any HTML tags.
You can send source strings of up to 5,000 characters, but there are a
few provisos that are sometimes lost.
You can only send the 5,000 characters via the POST method.
If you use GET method, you are limited to 2,000-character length limit on urls. If a url is longer than that, Google's servers will just reject it.
Note: 2,000-character limit including the path and the rest
of the query string as well + you must count uri encoding (for instance every space becomes a %20, every quotation
mark a %22)
The Cloud Translation API is optimized for translating of smaller requests. The recommended maximum length for each request is 5K characters (code points). However, the more characters that you include, the higher the response latency. For Cloud Translation - Advanced, the maximum number of code points for a single request is 30K. Cloud Translation - Basic has a maximum request size of 100K bytes.
https://cloud.google.com/translate/quotas