As I understand it TCP is required for congestion control and error recovery or reliable delivery of information from one node to another and its not the fastest of protocols for delivering information.
Some routing protocols such as EIGRP and OSPF ride directly on top of IP. Even ICMP rides directly over IP.
Why is UDP even required at all? Is it only required so that developers/programmers can identify what application the inbound packet should be sent to based on the destination port number contained within the packet?
If that is the case then how is information gathered from protocols that ride directly on top of IP sent to the appropriate process when there is no port number information present?
Why are voice and video sent over UDP? Why not directly over IP?
(Note that I do understand thoroughly the use case for TCP. I am not asking why use UDP over TCP or vice versa. I am asking why use UDP at all and how can some protocols use directly the IP layer. Whats the added advantage or purpose of UDP over IP?)
Your question makes more sense in terms of why is UDP useful (than why is UDP required).
UDP is a recognized protocol by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. UDP can be useful if you want to write a network protocol that's datagram based and you want to play more nicely with Internet devices.
Routers can have rules to do things like drop any packet that doesn't make sense. So if you try and send packets using say an unassigned IP protocol number between hosts separated by one or more routers, the packets may well never get delivered as you've intended. The same could happen with packets from an unrecognized UDP protocol but that's at least one less door to worry about whether your packet can make it through.
Internet endpoints (like hosts) may do similar filtering too. If you want to write your own datagram based protocol and use a typical host operating system, you're more likely to need to write your software as a privileged process if not as a kernel extension if you're trying to ride it as its own IP protocol (than if you'll be using UDP).
Hope this answer is useful!
First of all, IP and UDP are protocols on the different layers, IP by definition is Internet layer when UDP is transport layer. Layers were introduced to simplify network protocols architecture and to separate concerns. Application layer protocols are supposed to be based on transport layer (with some exceptions).
Most popular transport protocols (in IP network) are UDP and TCP. While TCP is feature rich but with many tradeoffs UDP is very simple but gives a lot of freedom and so typically is a base for other protocols.
The main feature of UDP is multiplexing: ports that allow multiple protocol instances (aka sockets) to coexist on the same node. This means that implementing your own protocol over IP instead of UDP either you won't be able to have multiple instances of your protocol on the same machine or you'll have to implement multiplexing yourself.
There're other features like segmentation and checksum. These features are not mandatory.
And as was mentioned in another answer there're lots of middleware like routers, NATs and firewalls that can ruin the idea of a custom "right over IP" protocol, but it's more like a collateral damage than a feature of UDP.
Related
While reading the book on TCP/IP I came across the words which are as "Although it looks as though the use of the flow label may make the source and destination addresses useless, the parts of the Internet that use connection-less service at the network layer still keep these addresses for several reasons.One reason is that part of the packet path may still be using the connection-less service. Another reason is that the protocol at the network layer is designed with these addresses and it may take a while before they can be changed". Now my question to you is if a connection has been formed between hosts in a connection-oriented manner then how come a path of a packet may still be using the connection-less services. Because as per my knowledge prevails the virtual path always be formed at while 3-way handshake is taking place which is the TCP/IP connection (which uses a connection-oriented service) ? And my second question for the second reason is that which protocol they are talking about since these words are stated below the Heading of "Connection-Oriented Services" therefore, it's making me pissed off to understand the literal meaning behind the words(The core conceptual understanding). And correct if anyone thinks I am having a wrong concept at any place. I'll be obliged. Thanks.
TCP as a connection-oriented protocol runs on top of IP which is connection-less. The routers used in transport only look at the IP packet, the TCP segment is simply payload and transported along. TCP provides several algorithms to form a virtual connection over a connection-less network.
The IP packet goes from hop to hop. On each hop, a router makes a forwarding decision solely based on the destination IP address. (More sophisticated devices may inspect more packet elements including source address and payload, but they aren't simple routers.)
The "path" is made up of all these individual hops. Because each hop is based on an independent routing decision the path can change at any time and for any packet. The path is not laid out by the TCP handshake.
Basically, you have to look at each protocol layer individually. Each one serves its own function.
I hope this also answers the second question.
I've seen while searching that it is possible to use two different programs on the same computer communicating over the network using the same port and same network interface provided one use UDP and the other TCP. However I didn't get a good explanation, how does it actually work and why this is possible?
Is it also possible for multiple programs to use the same UDP port since UDP does not establish a real connection between the peers, but just sends the packets to an address? I understand it's not possible with TCP as it creates a synchronized connection between the server and the client, but what about UDP?
Please explain in details if possible, or link a good article on the topic.
The other answers are correct but somewhat incomplete.
An IP (aka "INET") socket "connection" (i.e. communication between two processes, possibly on different machines) is defined by a 5-tuple: protocol, source address, source port, destination address, destination port. You can see that this is not limited to a stateful connection such as TCP.
This means that you can bind different processes to any unique instance of that 5-tuple. Because the "protocol" (e.g. TCP and UDP) is part of the differentiating factor, each can have a different process.
Theoretically, you could bind different services to the same TCP port if they bind to different interfaces (network cards, loopback, etc.) though I've never tried it.
It is standard practice, however, to always use the same service on the same port number. If both UDP and TCP are supported, they're just different ways of communicating with that same service. DNS, for example, uses UDP on port 53 for lookup because they are small requests and it's faster than creating a TCP connection but DNS also uses TCP on port 53 for "transfers" which are infrequent and can have large amounts of data.
Lastly, in complete accuracy, it isn't necessarily a 5-tuple. IP uses the "protocol" to pass to the next layer such as TCP and UDP though there are others. TCP and UDP each seperately differentiate connections based on the remaining 4 items. It's possible to create other protocols on top of IP that use completely different (perhaps port-less) differentiation mechanisms.
And then there are different socket "domains", such as the "unix" socket domain, which is completely distinct from "inet" and uses the filesystem for addressing.
The destination isn't identified by IP Addr:Port alone. There is another thing - IP header has a field called Protocol which differentiates the TCP and UDP endpoint. As such it becomes possible for two process to bind to same IP:Port as long as communication protocol is different.
The endpoint of a connection is for UDP and TCP defined by IP, protocol (TCP or UDP) and port. This means as long as you use a different protocol the endpoint of the communication is different too.
Because they are not the only component of the means of address. It's the same as why you can have two houses with the same number on different streets, or why you know John Whorfin is not the same Red Lectroid as John Bigbooté.
Each IP packet contains a field that says which transport-layer protocol is to be used, and within the domain of that protocol is a set of ports that can be the same as in any other protocol because they are actually a completely separate set.
As for the second question, there are answers elsewhere.
According to my knowledge if an internet application has to be designed, we should use either a connection-oriented service or connection-less service, but not both.
Internet's connection oriented service is TCP and connection-less service is UDP, and both resides in the transport layer of Internet Protocol stack.
Internet's only network layer is IP, which is a connection-less service. So it means whatever application we design it eventually uses IP to transmit the packets.
Connection-oriented services use the same path to transmit all the packets, and connection-less does not.
Therefore my problem is
if a connection oriented application has been designed, it should transmit the packets using the same path. But IP breaks that rule by using different routes.So how do both TCP and IP work together in this sense? It totally confuses me.
You, my friend, are confusing the functionality of two different layers.
TCP is connection oriented in the sense that there's a connection establishment, between the two ends where they may negotiate different things like congestion-control mechanism among other things.
The transport layer protocols' general purpose is to provide process-to-process delivery meaning that it doesn't know anything about routes; how your packets reach the end system is beyond their scope, they're only concerned with how packets are being transmitted between the two end PROCESSES.
IP, on the other hand, the Network layer protocol for the Internet, is concerned with data-delivery between end-systems yet it's connection-less, it maintains no connection so each packet is handled independently of the other packets.
Leaving your system, each router will choose the path that it sees fit for EACH packet, and this path may change depending on availability/congestion.
How does that answer your question?
TCP will make sure packets reach the other process, it won't care HOW they got there.
IP, on the other hand, will not care if they reach the other end at all, it'll simply forward each different packet according to what it sees most fit for a particular packet.
Note:
Let's assume that IP was connection-oriented, would that mean packets would follow the same-path?
Not necessarily, it depends on what the word 'connection' at this layer means, if it means negotiating certain options related to security, for instance, you may still have all your packets being forwarded through different routes over the Internet.
EDIT:
Not to confuse you though, most connection-oriented services at the network-layer and below mean that the connection, when established, also establishes a virtual-path that all 'packets' must follow, for further information read about:
Virtual circuit and frame-relay networks
This link answers your question pretty well http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_ConnectionOrientedandConnectionlessProtocols-3.htm
Some people consider this (TCP) to be like a “simulation” of circuit-switching at higher network layers; this is perhaps a bit of a dubious analogy. Even though a TCP connection can be used to send data back and forth between devices, all that data is indeed still being sent as packets; there is no real circuit between the devices. This means that TCP must deal with all the potential pitfalls of packet-switched communication, such as the potential for data loss or receipt of data pieces in the incorrect order.
The TCP protocol deals with the problem of IP packets arriving out of order or being lost, to give you the feeling they arrive through a single FIFO channel. Yes, TCP is smart enough to do that, there's no need for a dedicated underlying channel.
The TCP protocal is implemented by the sending/receiving machines, once the packets leave the sending machine, the routers they travel along know nothing about TCP, they just use IP to get the packets from the source the to destination. Then, it is the destination machines job to, using TCP, make sure that all the packets arrive and that they arrive in the correct order. The internet itself doesn't know anything about TCP, it's just a layer (often software) that gives connection to a connectionless medium (the internet).
So onces a packet leaves a destination, it can go along any path (mostly) as long as it gets to the desintation, regardless of the higher level protocol (such as TCP or UDP).
I mean, it's a bit more complicated then that, but as far as I can remember that's the general Idea.
Refer my short points properly,
1) Connection oriented means ==> reserving resources(buffer,cpu,bandwidth etc.)..but "Where??".(where resources are reserved?? This where is reason of your confusion, so following is ans.).
2) Connection oriented at Transport Layer means ==> Reserving the resources at Both End processes/Ports.(Since TCP is a transport layer,then its responsibility is to reserve the resources at both end processes only,irrespective of whats happening in the intermediate path.)
3) Connection oriented at Network Layer means ==> Reserving the resources at Network Layers.(Now In the whole journey of a packet from source to destination, Network layer is found at all intermediate routers too(but not transport layer). Hence if any protocol at Network layer is connection oriented then,its responsibility is to reserve resources at all intermediate routeres too i.e. all packets will have to follow same intermediate path, But IP is connection less hence,intermediate resources will not be reserved. i.e journey of a packets may follow different paths etc.)
#CONCLUSION:==> Intermediate path is decided by Network Layer, hence if IP then paths may be different.(IP may contain TCP),But TCP is responsible for Resource reservation at both End processes ,irrespective of Intermediate path of packet.
router works on three layers only (physical , data link and Network layers) , so routers will take decision depending only on the info. of network layer (IP protocol ) hence there is no information available about its TCP or UDP at the router
I had a strange idea. I heard of software which from my understanding uses UDP to transfer files decreasing the overhead found in TCP packets.
If my app requires TCP and my LAN has software set up to communicate with another datacenter on the other side of the coast with software setup on their end. Would it be possible to send the actual data via UDP but than simulating TCP on both ends?
Does anyone have any ideas or information about such projects?
If you're asking if you can use UDP as a Layer 2, then the answer is yes, sort of. There are various protocols that allow you to create a tunnel to another network using a UDP transport, such as L2TP and even IPsec (with NAT traversal). You could also do it at the application layer.
If you're asking if TCP can be implemented in UDP, the answer is no. First, TCP packets and UDP packets have an incompatible format. Second, TCP and UDP have different protocol numbers (seen in the IP header) which means that TCP traffic destined for a UDP port would not be passed to the correct upper-layer protocol.
Both TCP and UDP are built on top of the IP, but the TCP uses different packet structure and at the layer-2 it is not possible to mimic the TCP using UDP packets.
Of course, if you have the control on both the source and destination, then it is possible to create a reliable UDP tunnel for the TCP packets. This would require some internal information (packet number, ack/nack flags) in the body of the UDP packet.
There is an interesting project http://udt.sourceforge.net/
It is a broadcast-capable reliable file transfer mechanism built on top the UDP.
PseudoTCP is a protocol which implements TCP algorithms on top of the UDP. It was introduced since the NAT traversal for TCP is much more complicated than UDP. But some P2P applications do need a reliable data transfer among nodes.
So far as I know, there are two PseudoTCP variations: Libjingle and Libnice.Libjingle is an open source library from google which was initially for gtalk. You could take a look at file sharing example from libjingle: https://developers.google.com/talk/libjingle/file_share. Recently, Chrome desktop also use PseudoTCP implementation from libjingle for reliable connections.
Yes, you can develop a protocol on UDP that simulates TCP. However, if you simulated TCP fully, it would technically have more overhead. Because TCP is implement as the packet and your simulated TCP is implemented in the body of the packet.
If you only need one or two features of TCP (such as basic ordering), then implementing it in UDP is useful.
Halo uses 2-3 (IIRC) UDP protocols that simulate different features of TCP, then full fledged TCP for initializing game-states. I Shot You First Networking, GDC publication
For example, in one case, they send 3 duplicate UDP packets to overcome packet loss.
If you control the software on both ends, and it is cost-effective to build your own protocol, then UDP can be versatile.
One way to do it now on Linux-3.18+ is to use Foo over UDP (FOU) which implements Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE). Here's a good introduction to FOU, and the man page for ip-fou.
Or if you want an [open source] UDP based file transfer system there are things like UDT, UFTP, Tsunami-UDP, and even Google's QUIC (Now deprecated in favour of IETF QUIC).
Update: The QUIC protocol now has been standardised by the IETF which provides for secure reliable and unreliable transport over UDP as an alternative to TCP. There's a wide range of QUIC implementations available. There is also a growing set of protocol mappings on to QUIC such as HTTP/3, DNS over QUIC, etc
If my app requires TCP and my LAN has software setup to communicate
with another datacenter on the other side of the coast with software
setup on their end. Would it be possible to send the actual data via
UDP but than simulating TCP on both ends?
No. A UDP socket is in a different namespace from a TCP socket. You will be unable to write UDP at one end and send or receive TCP at the other end. TCP and UDP are peer protocols; both exist at the layer above IP. You can't use one to spoof the other.
Hmm, I believe so. You'd need to use a proxy at both ends, but it should be possible.
The biggest problem you are going to run into is that UDP is designed with the idea that you don't care if some of the packets don't ever make it to the other end.
Here's a link with some more info:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/key-differences-between-tcp-and-udp-protocols/
IMHO, it's not a good idea to transmit files via UDP.
TCP's problems are in its algorithms, not its headers.
You certainly could implement the TCP algorithms on top of UDP. That would effectively be the same as tunneling TCP datagrams inside of UDP datagrams. But all this accomplishes is to add a few more bytes of overhead to each packet, and require another endpoint to unwrap the packets.
UDP itself is just thin shim on top of IP: its a convenient way to access IP packet switched networking without having to dive into kernels or receive special handling from routers. The main reason to implement reliable transport on top of UDP is to get away from TCP algorithms in favor of something more efficient. FileCatalyst was mentioned above as one company which does this, and my own company Data Expedition, Inc. does so as well.
So you could implement TCP algorithms on top of UDP, but you wouldn't want to.
You can simulate something like a connection over UDP, and you as well can add reliability checks and ordering and retransmission and so on. - but then, it still isn't TCP, it just acts the way.
Of course, one of the ends can be a kind of "hub" or "proxy" which does an adaption. Then you don't have a 2-end solution, but in fact a 4 end solution - one pair with "real" TCP and the other with the "self-knitted" "TCP" - which you put together with an appropriately crafted program.
Are there any networking protocols that are not strictly TCP or UDP but can be used with either one?
For example, HTTP, FTP, STMP, RTMP are always TCP.
DNS, SNMP, DHCP, RIP are always UDP.
Is there anything that can be either TCP or UDP? Or am I wrong in the above assertions?
RTSP is one weird one I know of that uses both, TCP for the control port but UDP for audio/video/quality, but it has strict requirements of what gets sent of each.
I'm asking about standard, published, or at least commonly used protocols, not custom ones.
DNS can use either UDP or TCP; TCP is required when the response data exceeds 512 bytes.
If you examine a Windows' services file you will see a number of protocols registered for both TCP and UDP. Path: C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc In fact, most of the listings in the services file use both TCP and UDP protocols.
As far as well known apps that use both, I would think that most chat applications use both. sms-chat definitely does but probably most others.
Edit:
From that file, here's a few of the protocols that can be sent over either TCP or UDP (there are exactly 100 listed protocols that use both in the file, many internal MS protocols):
echo
discard
daytime
qotd (Quote of the day)
chargen (Character generator)
time
SIP can use UDP, TCP or SCTP. Using a reliable transport becomes important in SIP if your messages get to be at all large (i.e., significantly larger than the smallest MTU in between user agents). A good example is shared- or bridged-line appearances, which use a form of presence with XML bodies. The larger the number of SIP clients in the shared-line group, the larger the packets are likely to be, making fragmentation and retransmission an issue.
SIP can be either UDP or TCP. However, the reality is that UDP is mostly used for this protocol.
SNMP almost always runs over UDP, but it can and does run over TCP. Theory says that it's a bad idea to do SNMP over an error-correcting transport because because some of the very errors that SNMP intends to detect are masked.