I understand that "at+sapbr" is used for setting up an HTTP or FTP connection and that "at+cstt" , "at+ciicr" etc. are used for just a TCP connection.
However, from what I understand, HTTP/FTP are just a layers on top of the TCP protocol.
Why doesn't the SIM800 use "at+sapbr" for everything? Is there a difference in the way the SIM800 sets up the connection?
I tried different searches on Google, but I can't find a clear answer.
Related
Good people,
I am looking to write a rails 5 app that will receive a TCP data stream from an external party.
Is it possible to receive TCP data using ActionCable?
Are there sample apps online? Google hasn't been helpful
Or will I need to use eventmachine to receive the TCP data?
My answer might not be much helpful.
Actioncable forces its own protocol which is undocumented but simple.
Websocket isn't exactly a
simple tcp socket since it uses its own protocol for framing.
So for raw tcp socket you could use eventmachine however it has several issues. For example no true ssl support although that might not be an issue if you are running in a server environment. Also you don't have much control of what is going on.
Depending on how many connections you have you could use simple TCPServer socket or something more advanced based on nio4r eg: celluloid-io etc.
I have been writing my own version of the 802.11 protocol with network stack. This is mostly a learning experience to see more in depth on how networks work.
My question is, is there a standard for replying to client devices that a certain protocol is unsupported?
I have an android device connecting to my custom wifi device and immediately sending a TON of requests at the DNS port of my UDP protocol. Since I would like to test out other protocols I would very much like a way for my wifi device to tell the android device that DNS is not available and get it to quite down a little.
Thanks in advance!
I don't see a possibility to send a reply that a service is not available.
I can't find anything about this case in the UDP specification.
One part of the DNS specification assumes that there are multiple DNS servers and defines how to handle communication with them. This explains part of the behavior in your network, but does not provide much information how to handle it.
4.2.1 Messages - format - UDP usage
The optimal UDP retransmission policy will vary with performance of the
Internet and the needs of the client, but the following are recommended:
The client should try other servers and server addresses
before repeating a query to a specific address of a server.
The retransmission interval should be based on prior
statistics if possible. Too aggressive retransmission can
easily slow responses for the community at large. Depending
on how well connected the client is to its expected servers,
the minimum retransmission interval should be 2-5 seconds.
7.2 Resolver Implementation - sending the queries
If a resolver gets a server error or other bizarre response
from a name server, it should remove it from SLIST, and may
wish to schedule an immediate transmission to the next
candidate server address.
According to this you could try to send garbage back to the client, but this is rather a hack, or an error, but how does an error look like? Such a solution assumes that you have knowledge about the service that you don't support.
I believe that the DNS - requests can be avoided by using DHCP. DHCP allows to specify DNS-servers as listed in the linked page. This is the usual way that I know for a DNS-resolver in a LAN to get initial DNS servers although I don't find anything about this in the DNS specification. You can give the Android - device a DNS-server with DHCP so that it does to need to try to query your device. Querying your device could be a fallback.
Additionally to DNS there is mDNS which uses multicasts in the network to send queries. This seems not to be the protocol you have to do with because it uses the special port 5353.
Not possible to stop DNS in the way you intend. However, only for your tests you can check the UDP messages and find out the names the device is looking for. Then you update the hosts file (google how to do it: http://www.howtogeek.com/140576/how-to-edit-the-hosts-file-on-android-and-block-web-sites/) and add those names with some localoop IP address. That might work for your test.
Other possibility is to change DNS server to some localloop IP address: http://xslab.com/2013/08/how-to-change-dns-settings-on-android/
Again, this is only to avoid having all the DNS messages through the wifi connection.
What purpose is UDP for..if it delivers packets without any order (and given the fact that packets may get lost on the way or sent to other network).
UDP as many very usefull use cases.
Just a few off the top of my head:
1/ Your payloads are small (will hold in a single "packet") and you want to go fast. That's why DNS uses UDP when the data size does exceeds 512 bytes (99% of the cases?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System#Protocol_transport
And you do hundreds of DNS requests every day. How many TCP 3-way handshakes and connection tear-down saved by this? How may petabytes or network load saved on "the internet"? I'd say that's quite useful!
2/ You do not know who you are talking too, or even if someone is listening or wishing to reply. In other words, you cannot or do not want for sure to establish an actual connection, like TCP would do. There may not be a TCP service listening for you. For example, the SSDP protocol from UPnP uses UDP to discover devices/services:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Service_Discovery_Protocol
With UDP tough, you can send your data "in the wild" even if nobody is listening to you. Which leads me to point 3...
3/ You want to talk to multiple hosts, or even "everyone". That's multicasting and broadcasting, and it's very easy to do in UDP. The SSDP mentioned above is an example of such case. On the other hand, if you want to do multicast or broadcast on TCP, that becomes very tricky from the start. You'll have to subscribe to multicast group and blablabla. A multicast daemon may help (ex: https://github.com/troglobit/smcroute), but it's really way more difficult in TCP than with UDP.
4/ Your data is realtime, if the target is missing it there's no point for it to ask for a "please send it again, I did not get it and/or not in the correct order". That's too late, sorry. The receiver better forget it, go on and try to catch-up. A typical use case here can be live audio/video (telephony conversations, real time video streaming). There's no point for the receiver to try to get old, expired data again and again in case of TCP missed segment(s). You can only accumulate network data debt doing this. Better forget it and move on to the new, real-time data that keep coming in. You cannot "pause" real-time incoming data. If you want actual real-time, not pseudo real-time like you get in your web browser.
And I'm sure other posters will find many use-cases for UDP.
So UDP is very, VERY useful. You use it daily without noticing it. The networking world would be a pitiful place without it. You would really miss it. The "TCP/IP" should really be renamed "TCP-UDP/IP".
This was my advocacy for the unfairly despised but Oh-so-useful UDP. :-)
Typically, use UDP in applications where speed is more critical than reliability. For example, it may be better to use UDP in an application sending data from a fast acquisition where it is acceptable to lose some data points. You can also use UDP to broadcast/multicast to any/many machine(s) listening to the server.
Applications may want finer control over the performance characteristics or the reliability of their communications. For this, the operating system exposes IP’s “best-effort datagrams” to the application for it to do whatever it wants with them.
To do this, the OS provides UDP — the “user” datagram protocol. It’s just like IP, in that the service is best-effort datagrams, but instead of delivering those datagrams “to a computer,” there’s an added layer of addressing that says which application is interested in them (and like TCP, UDP does this with a port number).
Applications can run whatever they want on top of UDP — anything that runs on best-effort datagrams. There are lots of protocols you can run on top of that abstraction.
In general:
TCP is for high-reliability data transmissions
UDP is for low-overhead transmissions
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask, so forgive me if it isn't.
I'm writing computer monitoring software that needs to connect to a server. The server may send out relatively urgent messages, such as sound or cancel an alarm, and the client may send out data about the computer, such as screenshots. The data that the client sends isn't too critical on timing, but shouldn't be more than a two minutes late.
It is essential to the software that portforwarding need not be set up, and it is assumed that the internet connection will be done through a wireless router that has NAT almost all the time.
My idea is to have a TCP connection initiated from the client, and use that to transfer data. Ideally, I would have no data being sent when it is not needed, but I believe this to be impossible. Would sending the equivalent of a ping every now and again keep the connection alive, and what sort of bandwidth would it use if this program was running all the time on the computer? In addition, would it be possible to reduce the header size for these keep-alives?
Before I start designing the communication and programming, is this plan for connection flawed? Are there better alternatives?
Thanks!
1) You do not need to send 'ping' data to keep the connection alive, the TCP stack does this automatically; one reason for sending 'ping' data would be to detect a connection close on the client side - typically you only find out something has gone wrong when you try and read/write from the socket. There may be a way to change various time-outs so you can detect this condition faster.
2) In general while TCP provides a stream-oriented error free channel, it makes no guarantees about timeliness, if you are using it on the internet it is even more unpredictable.
3) For applications such as this (I hope you are making it for ethical purposes) - I would tend to use TCP, since you don't want a situation where the client receives a packet to raise an alarm but misses that one that turns it off again.
i am using raw sockets to create my own socket. i need to set the tcp_checksum.
i have tried a lot of references but all are not working (i am using wireshark for testing).
could you help me please.
by the way, i read somewhere that if you set tcp_checksum=0. then the hardware will calculate the checksum automatically for you. is this true? i tried it, but in wireshark the tcp_checksum gives a value of 0X000 and says tcp offload. i also read about tcp offloading, and didn't understand, is it only that wireshark cannot check an offloaded tcp checksum, but there is a correct one??
EDIT: i realized that if you set tcpChecksum to 0, then the network card will set it and not the operating system. i was testing using wireshark and a virtual machine, so this explains why the checksum is 0x000 (since the packet is not even passing to the network card.)
but i am still curious about calculating the tcp_checksum manually... any help or links?
This article tries to explain how it's done.
Another place worth taking a look at is for Linux kernel sources, start from the file net/ipv4/tcp__ipv4.c