I am developing a logic core to perform data transfer between a FPGA and a PC over ethernet, using a LAN8710 PHY on my FPGA board.
I've achieved to transfer some UDP data packets from the FPGA to the PC. It's a simple core that complies with the PHY transfer requirements. It builds the UDP package and transfer it to the PC.
To check the reception on the PC, I am using Wireshark and as said above, I receive the packets correctly. I've checked the reception with a simple UDP receiver written by myself.
But, I've noticed that I only receive these packets when Wireshark is running on the PC. I mean, if Wireshark is ON, my application receives the packets too, and the counter of received packets of the following picture increases. (This picture is not mine, just one from the internet)
http://i.stack.imgur.com/wsChT.gif
If I close Wireshark, the PC stops receiving packets and the counter of received packets stops. My application stops receiving too.
Although novice on networking topics, I suspect that this issue is related to PC-side. Seems like Wireshark is "opening/closing" the ethernet communication channel, or something like that. Does anyone knows about this issue?
To build a functional core to transfer data between a PC and the FPGA, I've developed a core to transfer and receive UDP packets. Next step will be ARP implementation (to let the PC identify my FPGA board, as I understand). What protocols are necessary to perform full-duplex data transfer between this 2 devices?
Thank you very much in advance,
migue.
Check whether you are able to get appropriate receive interrupt at ethernet driver level on PC-side for a single transmitted packet by FPGA. If you do not get the receive interrupt, check on the transmit side(FPGA) for appropriate transmit interrupts for packet that is being transmitted. This should mostly help you in cornering the issue.
As far as i know, wireshark is just a packet analyzer/sniffer. However, if wireshark is suspected, one option could be to try with alternate packet sniffer to rule out if any such scenario is happening.
A handy tool for determining problems in network and also for determining the network statistics shall be netstat. netstat -sp udp shall list down the statistics only for UDP. There are many other parameters that can be used with netstat for diagnosis.
After many months I solved it, I post to help someone stucked in the same point.
Finally I figured out that Wireshark uses a tool to access the network link layer of the computer. This tool allows Wireshark to sniff all incoming and outgoing packets at a specified network device. To do this, the first step is to OPEN the network device, and that's why my program only worked if Wireshark was open.
Regards.
Related
I am developing embedded microcontroller hardware using a Texas Instruments Starter Kit. I am writing the firmware for the Ethernet link between my microcontroller and x86 Windows desktop.
I have written my own Ethernet driver for the microcontroller and my own protocol driver. So I have absolute FULL control over what data is being transmitted to and from the microcontroller. Up until now, I have managed to write ARP, IP, and ICMP drivers.
I use Wireshark on Windows closely to monitor all data frames going in and out. Now when Wireshark is capturing, "ping" from the console works correctly, but when I stop capturing on Wireshark, my ping fails with "Destination host unreachable." I check the logs on my microcontroller; I see Windows is sending ARP requests, and the microcontroller is replying to them correctly. But the network driver in Windows is filtering them away. So no ICMP requests are being sent. When I check the MAC table using "arp" from the console, my microcontroller is in the list while capturing but not when not capturing its not in the list.
What could be the problem, and how can I debug this problem? Are there any tools/apps for Windows that give statistics on dropped/filtered packets?
I found the problem, there was a punny padding missing in my ICMP echo reply. I did a side by side comparision between a working ping with my wifi router vs my microcontroller on wireshark and found this difference. I thought it wasn't such a big deal, apparently not.
Although what has it got to do with wireshark capturing, I have no clue.
I'm setting up a traffic generator using pktgen-DPDK. What am having a hard time understanding is why DPDK plays a part when sending packets. From what I understand, when the receiver gets a packet and have their system configured to handle it using DPDK the NIC will send the packet to the app directly which then uses DPDK to do packet processing there (by passing inefficient Kernel network layers). So why do the transmitter also need to use DPDK for this? And how does it alter the packets that are being sent?
Here is an example to explain my thinking:
A transmitter is trying to send an image to receiver. The image is divided into small packets, which uses IP and TCP to get the packet from transmitter to receiver. After the packets have traveled over the internet, they finally get to the receiver. The receiver has configured their system to use DPDK, bypassing some Linux Kernel network layers. Through this the packet processing becomes faster.
Based on this example above, I don't see the point of using DPDK for sending packets or even how it would play a part in that. When we send packets, do we not simply use some protocols like TCP and IP to make sure the packet get where it needs to.
What is wrong with the example I'm giving and how could you rephrase it to be correctly?
I'm doing a security analysis project on an IoT device that uses an unencrypted BLE connection (with ATT protocol) and I want to spoof an individual BLE packet with the source address of an already connected device. Is there some tool or API that would allow me to do this easily? I've already tried gatttool and spooftooph but they seem to be connection based and don't allow you to send out single packets with modified fields (as far as I could tell).
You will need some hardware where you can access the radio peripheral directly. What you basically need to do is to find or write a ble sniffer firmware, with the modification that it at a given moment sends a packet on the connection it is currently listening to. But note that the signal strength must be stronger than the original device's signal so it doesn't interfere.
The only open source project I'm aware of is Ubertooth. You will also be able to do this with an nRF52 but then you need to write your own sniffer firmware since Nordic Semiconductor's is closed source.
I can't comment on Emils reply yet, < 50 rep:
Nordic Semis nRF Sniffer v2 needs only the nRF52DK and wireshark to work as a general BLE sniffer. At 40$ it's not that expensive. I know for a fact they will release a new dongle soon that will sell for ~10-15 bucks if you can wait a a month or two.
So I was curious if this is possible at all. Currently i have a program running in a micro controller (digi rabbit) that reads SPI data from a chip. I also have TCP/IP protocol set in this program so it sends the SPI data to the server. Microcontroller is programmed in C. Server is in java. I convert SPI data into string and send it over, the server reads the raw data.
But i wanted to know if there is a way that I can read the data from Ethernet port. So what i want is one end of cat 5 cable on micro controller and the other on Ethernet port of the computer. Just for testing purposes that micro controller port and everything is installed properly, before i turn on the server. I am not that experienced with networking. So if anyone can point to a blog, or any tips that would be great. My question is how would i go about it?
Thank You
What you want to do is called raw Ethernet. Of course this can be done.
On the microcontroller side you need to follow its Ethernet controller datasheet to send out and receive packets. On the PC side this is a bit more complicated and depends on the OS that is running on the PC. On Windows you can use the WinPcap driver to send and receive raw Ethernet packets.
Be aware, that both Ethernet controllers, the one on the PC and the one on the microcontroller, filter all incoming packets that do not contain the receivers MAC address or any multicast/broadcast address. For a simple check the broadcast address (all address bits are 1) will do.
Also note, that the OS on your PC will transmit all kind of packets as soon as the link is established. So you may use a unique protocol identifier in the type field of your raw Ethernet frame. Check Wikipedia's article about Ethernet frames. Btw. don't get confused. You only need to send MAC-adresses, Ethertype and the payload. Everything else, like the CRC, preamble etc., is added by the Ethernet controller automatically.
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.