I want to broadcast a request to all client that are connected to my esp8266 12f access-point
I used this to create a connection per client, means if there're 3 clients it will create 3 connections.
for mac,ip in pairs(wifi.ap.getclient()) do
srv= net.createConnection(net.TCP, 0)
srv:on("receive", function(client, b_response) srv:close() collectgarbage() end)
srv:on("connection", function(client, b_request) client:send(request) end)
srv:connect(80, ip)
end
I tried the broadcast ip srv:connect(80, "255.255.255.255") but nothing was sent
The Problem :-
What I used that every srv will overwrite the previous srv so I can not get a response if it was delayed, even so I can name every srv with a different name like srv_1, srv_2, srv_3 but this take too much memory.
What I want
Create only one connection ?
Your code is using TCP, which is inherently a single connection, point-to-point protocol. There's no such thing as a "broadcast" TCP connection. TCP simply does not work using broadcast. That's like trying to use a car as a boat.
If you're sending a small amount of information, you might try UDP instead. The drawbacks are that UDP is unreliable - you can't be certain your message was received - and you'd need a lot more code to receive a response, if you want one, and you'd need to build a reliability mechanism (retransmit if no answer received, detect retransmissions in case the answer was dropped) if you care about that.
I'd recommend that you check out the MQTT protocol - it's designed to make it easy to communicate with multiple clients. It's lightweight and MQTT clients run well on NodeMCU and Arduino processors. There's an MQTT client built into NodeMCU's LUA implementation.
The downside is you'd need an MQTT broker that all of your NodeMCU's will connect to. The broker is usually run on a more capable processor (a Raspberry Pi is a good choice) or externally on the Internet (Adafruit offers a broker at https://io.adafruit.com/), although there are some implementations that run on an ESP8266.
Related
I am puzzled...
My project is a PC connected to multiple micro-controller boards in an isolated network. So far the protocol has been UDP which is easy to deal with, has no particular client/server but has its obvious shortcomings of lost messages when things get busy.
The micro-controllers have fixed IP-addresses (set by dip switches), the PC SW has a list of them, sends at present UDP messages to each of them and they reply to the address they came from (i.e. the PC) with status and/or data.
My question is now that I switch to TCP instead of UDP, should the PC be the listening server with many clients (could be anything from 1 - 50), or should the micro controllers be listening servers the PC can connect to as client? Note: controllers have fixed/known addresses - the PC does not.
An additional concern is re-connection. The micro-controllers are external and may lose connection, reset or otherwise need to connect again.
Thanks....
should the PC be the listening server with many clients (could be anything from 1 - 50), or should the micro controllers be listening servers the PC can connect to as client?
That is a basic design question that we cannot answer for you. Likely, it's more practical for arbitrary devices to connect to a central server but that's not a given.
controllers have fixed/known addresses - the PC does not.
That might turn the previous question around.
The micro-controllers are external and may lose connection, reset or otherwise need to connect again.
That's something you need to put into your design - have TCP connections time out and reconnect. Usually, a finite-state machine is useful here. You should also consider whether you use a one-shot connect-transmit-disconnect similar to UDP (easier to implement) or a longer TCP session with multiple data transmissions (more efficient).
I am an embedded software developer who has any experience with TCPIP on connected devices. Also, I am not a software protocol expert, so I am a bit confusing about TCPIP protocol stack + responsiblities of its various phy layers.
First of all, I have experiences with such protocols like UART, SPI, CAN, USB... As you know, the phy layer directly affects you while selecting the protocol you used at the software level. For example, if you use usb and you build a software protocol on it, you do not occasionally deal with some details like checking corrupted frame in your sofware protocol, because phy layer of it guarantees this operation. CAN also has some CAN Controller facilities like crc and bit stuffing so, it is really reliable. But the situation is not the same for simple peripherals like UART/USART. Let's say you are using a bluetooth module to upgrade your firmware, you need to be aware of almost everything that can occur while communicating like delays, corrupted frames, payload validating etc.
Briefly, i am trying to understand the exact role of newtork interfaces come included in MCUs, that are interfaced with RJ45 phy sockets directly. In another words, imagine that I wrote a server application on my pc. Also i configured and ran an application in my development board which has an RJ45 socket and it runs as a client. Also imagine they established a connection over TCP. So, what will be the situation at the client side, when i send a 32 bytes of data to the socket from the server side? What will I see at the lowest level of MCU that is an RxCompleteInterrupt()? Are the data I sent and some other stuffs appended to the TCP packet guaranteed to be delivered by the eth controller in the MCU and ethernet controller of my PC? OR am i responsible (or the stack i used) check all the things necessary to validate whether the frame is valid or not?
I tried to be as clear as it would be. Please if you have experience, then try to write clean comments. I am not a TCPIP expert, maybe I used some wrong terminology, please focus the main concept of the question.
Thanks folks.
If you don't have any prior experience with the TCP/IP protocol suite, I would strongly suggest you to have a look at this IBM Redbook, more specifically at chapters 2, 3 and 4.
This being said:
So, what will be the situation at the client side, when i send a 32
bytes of data to the socket from the server side? What will I see at
the lowest level of MCU that is an RxCompleteInterrupt()?
You should have received an Ethernet frame in your buffer. This Ethernet frame should contain an IP packet. This IP packet should contain a TCP packet, which payload should consist in your 32 bytes of data. But there will be several exchanges between the client and the server prior to your data to be received, because of TCP being a connection-oriented protocol, i.e. several Ethernet frames will be sent/received.
Are the data I sent and some other stuffs appended to the TCP packet
guaranteed to be delivered by the eth controller in the MCU and
ethernet controller of my PC? OR am i responsible (or the stack i
used) check all the things necessary to validate whether the frame
is valid or not?
The TCP packet will ultimately be delivered, but there there are not warranties that your Ethernet frames and IP packets will be delivered, and will arrive in the right order. This is precisely the job of TCP, as a connection-oriented protocol, than to do what is needed so that the data you are sending as a TCP payload will ultimately be delivered. Your MCU hardware should be the one responsible for validating the Ethernet frames, but the TCP/IP stack running on the MCU is responsible for validating IP and TCP packets and the proper delivery of the data being sent/received over TCP.
You can experiment with TCP on a Linux PC using netcat, and capture the exchange using Wireshark or tcpdump.
Create a 'response' file containing 32 bytes:
echo 0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKL > response.txt
Start Wireshark, and filter on lo interface using filter tcp port 1234
Start a TCP server listening on TCP port 1234, which will send the content of response.txt upon receiving a connection from the client:
netcat -l 1234 < response.txt
In another console/shell, connect to the server listening on tcp/1234, and display what was received:
netcat localhost 1234
0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKL
On Wireshark, you should see the following Wireshark Network Capture, and be able to expand all frames/packets of the full exchange using the IBM Redbook as a reference.
Your 32 bytes of data will be in the payload section of a TCP packet sent by the server.
I have a remote sensor that talks to the world via a low bandwidth TCP connection over GSM. It can often be in a location with extremely patchy GSM connectivity though. At the moment, the remote sensor waits for a GPRS network and then initiates a TCP connection with the server and then listens for commands (which are only a dozen or so bytes every hour or so)
Is an SMS more or less likely to get through to the remote sensor than being able complete a TCP connection? I guess I'm wondering how likely it is that a network signal strength is sufficient for SMS but not for TCP.
Using standard text messaging services for M2M is good idea if you can fit your data in 140 bytes. For short transmissions, opening an GPRS/1xRTT (2G) IP session, transmitting the data to a server and closing the session is less efficient and more likely to go wrong than sending an SMS.
As a side note, you can also use SMS (MT-SMS) to bring IoT device online (mechanism called "Shoulder-Taps" ).
Compared to data (or voice), SMS use only the signaling part of the mobile network. It's a quite cheap operation in terms of network resources reservation so you'll more likely get through with an SMS than with a data connection in a weak signal environment. One additional advantage is much lower power consumption of your terminal which might be important for M2M context.
As stated by #Jarek previously, you need to be able to pack your data into 140 bytes or to forge "long" SMSes which are kind of concatenation of "simple" 140-bytes SMSes
If so, do you know examples of what can go wrong in a non-TCP network?
Learning about MQTT I came across several mentions of the fact that MQTT relies on TCP/IP stack. For example, from mqtt.org:
MQTT for Sensor Networks is aimed at embedded devices on non-TCP/IP
networks, whereas MQTT itself explicitly expects a TCP/IP stack.
But if you read the reference documents, you won't finding anything like that. Moreover, there's QoS field that can be used for reliable delivery and whose values other than 0 are essentially useless in TCP/IP networks. Right now I see nothing that would prevent me from establishing an MQTT connection using UNIX pipe, domain or UDP socket rather than TCP socket.
MQTT just needs a delivery that is ordered and reliable, it doesn't have to be TCP. SCTP works just fine, for example, but UDP doesn't because there is no way to guarantee your large PUBLISH packet made up of multiple UDP packets will arrive in order and complete.
With regards TCP reliability, in theory what you are saying is true, but in practice when an application calls write() and receives a successful return, it can't guarantee when the data has actually made it out of the computer to the remote host. All write() (or send()) does is copy the data to the kernel buffers, at which point you have no further control.
The only way to be sure that a message reaches the remote host at the application level is to have the remote host reply.
MQTT-SN (for sensor Network ) is the solution for the problem that MQTT was having while running over TCP/IP .
There is a concept of MQTT gateway which is brought in in for MQTT-SN which helps in bringing non-TCP / IP implementation.
http://emqttd-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/mqtt-sn.html
I have a simple xbee network operating where there are a bunch of slaves operating remotely and all talking to one master, who is connected to the server computer. That works no problem.
The slaves all send their ID as part of the packet and I'd like to have the master deliberately send an Ack after a delay. I'm trying to figure out how to do this efficiently and it seems that the only plausible way that doesn't involve reprogramming the master before each Ack is to send the Ack to all slaves and have them ignore the packet if it's not meant for them.
That solution is ok - I just can't figure out the command to use to do this. Is there some sort of Serial sendAll command? All of the devices are on the same ATID.
Typically in this situation, you would configure the master in API mode so you would get "Receive Explicit" frames with source addressing information, and could send with the "Transmit Explicit" frame type, and include addressing information in your frames.
If you use AT mode (transparent serial mode), then you're stuck having to change the DH and DL parameters on your coordinator every time you want to change who you send to. You should avoid using broadcast packets, since each one results in lots of network traffic (IIRC, each router will send the broadcast packet three times).
I do not know of a good XBee library on the Arduino, but it might be possible to port Digi's Open Source ANSI C XBee Host Library to that platform.