I understand that it's different than a hub in that instead of packets being broadcasted to all devices connected to the device, it knows exactly who requested the packet by looking at the MAC layer.
However, is it still possible to use a packet sniffer like Wireshark to intercept packets meant for other users of the switch? Or is this only a problem with ethernet hubs that doesn't affect switches due to the nature of how a switch works?
On a slightly off topic side note, what exactly is classified as a LAN? For example, imagine two separate ethernet switches are hooked up to a router. Would each switch be considered a separate LAN? What is the significance of having multiple LAN's within the same network?
it knows exactly who requested the packet by looking at the MAC layer.
More exactly, the switch uses the MAC destination address to forward a frame to the port associated with that address. Addresses are automatically learned by looking at the MAC source address on received frames.
A switch is stateless, ie. is has no memory who requested which data. A layer-2 switch also has no understanding of IP packets, addresses or protocols. All a basic switch does is learn source addresses and forward by destination address.
is it still possible to use a packet sniffer like Wireshark to intercept packets meant for other users of the switch?
Yes. You'll need a managed switch supporting port mirroring or SPANning. This doesn't intercept frames, it just copies them to the mirror port. If you need to actually intercept frames you have to put your interceptor in between the nodes (physically or logically).
With a repeater hub, every bit is repeated to every node in the collision domain, making monitoring effortless.
what exactly is classified as a LAN?
This depends on who you ask and on the context. A LAN can be a layer-1 segment/bus aka collision domain (obsolete), a layer-2 segment (broadcast domain), a layer-3 subnet (mostly identical with an L2 segment) or a complete local network installation (when contrasted with SAN or WAN).
Adding to #Zac67:
Regarding this question:
is it still possible to use a packet sniffer like Wireshark to
intercept packets meant for other users of the switch?
There are also active ways in which you can trick the Switch into sending you data that is meant for other machines. By exploiting the Switch's mechanism, one can send a frame with a spoofed source MAC, and then the Switch will transfer frames destined to this MAC - to the sender's port (until someone else sends a frame with that MAC address).
This video discusses this in detail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVcBShtWFmo&list=PL9lx0DXCC4BMS7dB7vsrKI5wzFyVIk2Kg&index=18
In general, I recommend the following video that explains this in detail and in a visual way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Youk8eUjkgQ&list=PL9lx0DXCC4BMS7dB7vsrKI5wzFyVIk2Kg&index=17
what exactly is classified as a LAN?
So indeed this is one of the least-well-defined terms in Computer Networks. With regards to the Data Link Layer, a LAN can be defined as a segment, that is - a broadcast domain. In this case, two devices are regarded as part of the same segment iff they are one hop away from one another - that is, they can switch frames in the second layer.
Related
I am sorry if its basics, but I did not find the appealing answer for it over the Internet.
Why only MAC is used to transfer the packet to a device ? MAC address is only obtained by ARP for a specific IP address. So, why not just let the routers maintain IP addresses of the neighbouring routers and route packets using IP addresses of routers instead of MAC addresses ?
Why not redesign the architecture, to only use IP address for routing as well as moving the packet in the data link layer too ?
Why do we need MAC addresses?" Why can't network devices such as the routers just send the packet to the next router using the router's IP address?
Note : I know that MAC address is used to identify the system in a network. But you see the source never knew the MAC address of receiver. All it knew was its IP address and MAC address of next hop.
I'm reading Data Comm and Networking by Forouzan ( Ed 5) and it says that even routers have an IP address. So why use the mac address at all. The router can store the IP address of the source and route it to the next router .
EDIT : The question that I was getting as suggestion to this one does not answer my query. There are multiple counter points and proof that I have presented here which could have been done which is not answered by the one which is suggested. So please read my question before making any assumptions.
What do you think makes more sense: Having one protocol like Ethernet handle all the layer 2 details so that its layer 3 payload doesn't have to care, or force IP, ARP, WoL, IPX, MPLS, SLPP, and dozens more implement it on their own? The whole purpose of OSI layers is that upper layers need not know all the lower layer's details and lower layers need need not support the upper layer's features.
MAC addresses are used for the layer 2 protocol which encapsulates a layer 3 protocol. If all the necessary features were embedded into IP, then you'd be leaving other protocols to re-implement layer 2 routing on their own. This would be wildly inefficient.
I'm currently for a side project trying to setup a VPN with 2 linux box doing the encryption/decryption.
At the moment, I work on layer 3 with the linux framework xfrm (IP packets from host 1 are transformed into ESP when passing through the first box before being sent to host 2, decryption being done on the second box).
I'd like to act directly on layer 2 so I can remove the IP address of my boxes. I think I can do that by setting up ethernet bridges on each box, using netfilters hooks to redirect frames to a socket where a userspace program would do the encryption of the ethernet frames payload (transform the IP packets into ESP).
|Host 1|==|Ethernet Bridge|==Router --- (network not secure) --- Router==|Ethernet Bridge|==|Host 2|
Problem I have with this implementation lies in throughput as I think all these actions would greatly reduce it. Are there other ways I could implement what I'm looking for ?
Layer-2 only works from host-to-host (your router is just a host to layer-2) on a LAN. layer-2, including layer-2 encryption, does not cross a layer-3 device, e.g. router. MACsec (IEEE 802.1AE) is used for layer-2 encryption.
Layer-3 is used to connect LANs, and if you want end-to-end encryption from one LAN to another LAN, you need to encrypt on a layer higher than layer-2. Routers strip layer-2 frames from the packets, switch the packets, then create a new frame for the next hop. The next hop may not use MAC addresses; PPP is common for ISP connections, it doesn't use MAC addresses, and the frames are very different than ethernet. Unless you control all the links between the LANs, you need to encrypt at a high layer.
You're right, deploying a layer 2 VPN is costly (in the sense that you have to pay for internet bandwidth) and most of the time useless, since there are few applications that won't work without being on the same LAN.
What you will get with a layer 2 VPN is mostly broadcasts, things like SMB out-of-the-box name resolution (does not apply if you have to connect to an AD server or have a WINS server), DLNA, SPX/IPX or LAN-only games will work seamlessly, on the other hand your perception on having to relay lots of possibly useless information will also be correct.
Maybe the solution you're looking for is to use ebtables , which is a layer 2 firewall akin to iptables relating to layer 3 in such way that you can drop some packets while accepting others before relaying it over VPN/internet/etc.
PPP just one layer 2 protocol, there's nothing special about it, some VPN gateway use it (namely PPtP VPNs), others don't.
I know, how to write a C# application that works through a local network.
I mean I know, how to make my client-side application access my server-side application in a single local network.
But I wonder: How do such apps, as Skype, TeamViewer, and many other connect via global network?
I apologise, if this question is simple or obvious, but I couldn't find any information about this stuff.
Please, help me, I'll be very grateful. Any information is accepted - articles, plain info, books,and so on...
Question is very wide and I try to do short overview.
Following major difference between LAN (Local Area Network) and WAN (Wide Area Network):
Network quality:
LAN is more or less stable, WAN can be with network issues like:
Packet loss (you need use loss-tolerant transport like TCP or UDP with retransmits or packet loss concealment)
Packet jitter (interpacket intervals may differ a lot from sending part). Most common thing is packets bursts.
Packet reordering
Packet duplication
Network connectivity
WAN is less stable than LAN. So you need properly handle all things like:
Connection stale
Connection loss
Errors in the middle of the connection (if you use UDP for example)
Addresses:
In WAN you deal with different network equipment between client and server (or peers in case of peer-to-peer communication). You need to take in account:
NATs - most of the clients are behind NAT and you need to pass them through. According technics are called "NAT traversal"
Firewalls - may ISP has own rules what client can do or can't. So if you do something specific like custom transport protocol you may bump into ISP firewalls.
Routing - especially multicast and broadcast communication. In common case multicast is not possible to route. Broadcasts are never routed. So you need to avail this type of communication if you want to use WAN.
May be I forgot something. But these points are major. You can read many articles about any of them.
In my college lab, all the PCs are connected via a hub. I want to capture data packets using Wireshark, but it only displays the interface of my own PC. How can I capture the packets of other PCs?
I've tried all the interfaces, and I can't get it to work.
Odds are you're connected to a switch rather than a hub. The problem there is that only packets intended for your network card's hardware (MAC) address and broadcast packets will be sent to your PC. The switch remembers the hardware address of devices plugged into it and performs packet forwarding based on those addresses. This vastly increases the potential bandwidth of your network segment, but makes snooping on other traffic more difficult. You will need to perform what's called ARP cache poisoning. Basically you need to trick every other computer connected to the switch to send its traffic to you rather than its true destination. You will then need to forward those packets not actually for you onto the correct destination otherwise it will take down the entire segment you're on and people will get nosy.
This type of redirection is possible, but it seems like you'll need to do quite a bit more research and understand exactly what is going on before attempting it. To get started, look into the Address Resolution Protocol; understand what a "layer 2" switch is doing; find out how to inject and reroute packets on the network; think about the consequences of getting caught.
If you're serious about moving forward, check out http://www.admin-magazine.com/Articles/Arp-Cache-Poisoning-and-Packet-Sniffing for some starting tips.
2 computers are in different subnets.
Both are Windows machines.
There are 2-5 IGMP-ready routers between them.
They can connect each other over multicast protocol (they have joined the same multicast group and they know about each other's existance).
How to establish a reliable TCP connection between them without any public server?
Programming language: C++, WinAPI
(I need a TCP connection to send some big critical data, which I can not entrust to UDP)
You haven't specified a programming language, so this whole question may be off-topic.
Subnets are not the problem. Routability is the problem. Either there is routing set up or there isn't. If they are, for example, both behind NAT boxes, then you're at the mercy of the configuration of the nat boxes. If they are merely on two different subnets of a routed network, it's the job of the network admin to have set up routing. So, each has an IP address, and either can address the other.
On one machine, you are going to create a socket, bind it to some port of your choice, and listen. On the other, you will connect to the first machine's IP + the selected port.
edit
I'm going to try again, but I feel like there's a giant conceptual gap here.
Once upon a time, the TCP/IP was invented. In the original conception, every item on the network has an IPV4 address, and every machine could reach every other machine, via routing, except for machines in the 'private' address space (10.x, etc).
In the very early days, the only 'subnets' were 'class A, class B, class C'. Later the idea of subdividing a network via bitmasks was added. The concept of 'subnet' is just a way of describing a piece of network in which all the hosts can deliver packets to each other by one hop over some transport or another. In a properly configured network, this is only of concern to operating system drivers. Ordinary programs just address packets over the network and they arrive.
The implementation of this connectivity was always via routing protocol. If you have a (physical) ethernet A over here, and a (physical) ethernet B over there, connected by some sort of point-to-point link, the machines on A need to know where to send packets for B. Or, to be exact, they need to know where to send 'not-A' packets, and whatever they send them needs to know where to send 'B' packets. In simple cases, this is arranged via explicit configuration: routing rules stuffed into router boxes or even computers with multiple physical interfaces. In more complex cases, routing boxes intercommunicate via protocols like EGP or BGP or IGMP to learn the network topology.
If you use the Windows 'route' command, you will see the 'default route' that the system uses to send packets that need to leave the local subnet. It is generally the address of the router box responsible for moving information from the local subnet to everywhere else.
The whole goal of this routing is to arrange that a packet sent from a.b.c.d to e.f.g.h will get there. TCP is no different than UDP, except that you can't get there by multicast or broadcast: you need to know the exact address of your correspondent.
DNS was invented to allow hosts to learn each other's IP addresses without having human being send them around in email messages.
All this stops working when people start using NAT and firewalls to turn off routing. The whole idea of NAT is that the computers behind the NAT box are not addressable at all. They all appear to have one IP address. They can send stuff out, but they can only receive stuff if the NAT box has gone to extra trouble to map them a port.
From your original message, I sort of doubt that NAT is in use here. I just don't understand your comment 'I don't have access to the network.' You say that you've sent UDP packets here and there. So how did you do that? What addresses did you use?