I know that data from the application layer is split into segments by the Transport Layer (like TCP). Also, the Data Link layer might split the datagrams into multiple frames.
What about the Internet layer? Will IP layer simply encapsulate the segment or will it further split it?
Thanks,
Pavan.
The IP layer can't split a single TCP packet into multiple TCP packets, because it doesn't know what TCP is. However, routers along the network path may choose to fragment the IP packet itself into multiple pieces. Each of those pieces contains only a fraction of the TCP packet, so they all need to be received before the TCP layer can go to work. (For that matter, the sending machine can send out the packet pre-fragmented if it likes, though one generally tries to size the TCP packet so it doesn't have to.)
All that's the theory. In practice, IP fragmentation is uncommon, and avoided as much as possible. Additionally, IPv6 doesn't support fragmentation at all.
Related
My firewall textbook says: "UDP breaks a message into numbered segments so that it can be transmitted."
My understanding was UDP had no sequence or other numbering scheme? That data was broken into packets and sent out with no ordered reconstruction on the other end, at least on this level. Am I missing something?
The book is just wrong here. The relevant section says:
User Datagram Protocol (UDP)—This protocol is similar to TCP in that it handles the addressing of a message. UDP breaks a message into numbered segments so that it can be transmitted. It then reassembles the message when it reaches the destination computer.
UDP does not include any mechanism to segment or reassemble messages; each message is sent as a single UDP datagram. If you look at the UDP "packet" (technically datagram) structure on page 108, there's no segment number or anything like that.
Mind you, segmentation can happen at other layers, either above or below UDP:
IP packets can be fragmented if they're too big for a network link's MTU (maximum transfer unit). This can happen to IP packets that contain UDP, TCP, or whatever. This is actually relevant for firewalls because creative fragmentation can sometimes be used to bypass packet filtering rules.
Some protocols that run on top of UDP also use something like numbered segments. For example, TFTP (trivial file transfer protocol) breaks files into "blocks", and transmits a block number in the header for each block. (And the receiver responds acknowledging the block number it's received -- it's like a drastically simplified version of TCP.) But this is part of the TFTP protocol, not part of UDP.
QUIC is another example of a protocol that runs over UDP and supports segmentation (and multiple connections, and...), and each packet contains a packet number. But again it's part of the QUIC protocol, not UDP.
At which point in message transmission from client to host (or vice versa) is the message actually sliced into packets?
From my current understanding, the application puts an entire file in the socket and hands it over to TCP entirely. TCP first buffers the file/message, and when the time is right (when is the time right?) cuts chunks of the buffer data (creates packets) and adds TCP headers to transform chunks into segments.
Why do we talk about packets in the application layer, if there are no packets in the application layer at all? Just whole files... This doesn't add right.
Can someone confirm my understanding?
A TCP-based application has a message to send. What the message is depends on the application — it could be just a small request, or a whole file. It passes the message to the transport layer (TCP), which chops up the message into segments and passes them one by one to the network layer (Internet Protocol). The network layer adds a header to each packet, and passes it to the link layer (Ethernet), which handles frames.
So, in principle, we have:
messages at the application layer;
segments at the transport layer;
packets at the network layer; and
frames at the link layer.
In practice, however, people are not that pedantic, and tend to mix the notions up. You'll often hear people speak about TCP packets (the correct term would be IP packets with a TCP payload), and they will even speak about the application sending packets (the correct formulation would be that the application passes messages to the transport layer). Most of the time the inexact terminology is not a problem, since context disambiguates things.
The data are sliced into, and encapsulated by segments at the transport layer (UDP, TCP). The segments are encapsulated by packets by the network layer (IPv4, IPv6, etc.). The packets are encapsulated by frames at the data-link layer (ethernet, etc.).
Recently I dug a bit deeper into the matter of network protocols and the OSI model, when noticed, that incoming TCP datagrams (correct me if this is the wrong term) are splitted into several parts, when they exceed a certain size - in this case it's propably my router's MTU. I captured those datagrams using SharpPcap in order to extract some information i am looking for, if you are wondering where I got this information from.
Anyway I was wondering if the reassembly of fragmented packets shouldn't be task of the IP layer, since it definitely provides information to accomplish this (id, fragmentation flags, fragment offset). Furthermore I read, that the TCP layer is to be interpreted as a stream-based protocol. But this actually implies, that it's up to the TCP layer to care about filling the application's buffer the right way, so that the initial piece of information is reconstructed and may be flushed "up" all further layers.
Before I made this observation I actually thought, that the TCP layer should care about reassembling those datagrams, but none of the mentioned layers does...
This leads to the following question(s):
Why are the TCP datagrams I receive not reassembled and what layer SHOULD actually take care about this?
The ip layer handles fragmentation and reassembly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_fragmentation.
When you use a tool like SharpPcap that uses winpcap/airpcap/libpcap, you are receiving the raw datagrams from the device you are capturing on. For many adapters this is an ethernet datagram that then contains an ip frame etc.
This is in contrast to data received after processing by the networking stack, where the reassembly is performed.
So, its expected that you won't get reassembled datagrams from SharpPcap (or many other capture libraries) because the data is being captured at the adapter level, not inside of our as an output of the networking stack that is performing reassembly.
You can perform the reassembly after capture either yourself or using a library that provides this functionality. You could also add such a component to Packet.Net (the packet processing library that SharpPcap is using) to provide this reassembly.
Why is the IP called a connectionless protocol? If so, what is the connection-oriented protocol then?
Thanks.
Update - 1 - 20:21 2010/12/26
I think, to better answer my question, it would be better to explain what "connection" actually means, both physically and logically.
Update - 2 - 9:59 AM 2/1/2013
Based on all the answers below, I come to the feeling that the 'connection' mentioned here should be considered as a set of actions/arrangements/disciplines. Thus it's more an abstract concept rather than a concrete object.
Update - 3 - 11:35 AM 6/18/2015
Here's a more physical explanation:
IP protocol is connectionless in that all packets in IP network are routed independently, they may not necessarily go through the same route, while in a virtual circuit network which is connection oriented, all packets go through the same route. This single route is what 'virtual circuit' means.
With connection, because there's only 1 route, all data packets will arrive in the same order as they are sent out.
Without connection, it is not guaranteed all data packets will arrive
in the same order as they are sent out.
Update - 4 - 9:55 AM 2016/1/20/Wed
One of the characteristics of connection-oriented is that the packet order is preserved. TCP use a sequence number to achieve that but IP has no such facility. Thus TCP is connection-oriented while IP is connection-less.
The basic idea is pretty simple: with IP (on its own -- no TCP, UDP, etc.) you're just sending a packet of data. You simply send some data onto the net with a destination address, but that's it. By itself, IP gives:
no assurance that it'll be delivered
no way to find out if it was
nothing to let the destination know to expect a packet
much of anything else
All it does is specify a minimal packet format so you can get some data from one point to another (e.g., routers know the packet format, so they can look at the destination and send the packet on its next hop).
TCP is connection oriented. Establishing a connection means that at the beginning of a TCP conversation, it does a "three way handshake" so (in particular) the destination knows that a connection with the source has been established. It keeps track of that address internally, so it can/will/does expect more packets from it, and be able to send replies to (for example) acknowledge each packet it receives. The source and destination also cooperate to serial number all the packets for the acknowledgment scheme, so each end knows whether packets it sent were received at the other end. This doesn't involve much physically, but logically it involves allocating some memory on both ends. That includes memory for metadata like the next packet serial number to use, as well as payload data for possible re-transmission until the other side acknowledges receipt of that packet.
TCP/IP means "TCP over IP".
TCP
--
IP
TCP provides the "connection-oriented" logic, ordering and control
IP provides getting packets from A to B however it can: "connectionless"
Notes:
UDP is connection less but at the same level as TCP
Other protocols such as ICMP (used by ping) can run over IP but have nothing to do with TCP
Edit:
"connection-oriented" mean established end to end connection. For example, you pick up the telephone, call someone = you have a connection.
"connection-less" means "send it, see what happens". For example, sending a letter via snail mail.a
So IP gets your packets from A to B, maybe, in any order, not always eventually. TCP sorts them out, acknowledges them, requests a resends and provides the "connection"
Connectionless means that no effort is made to set up a dedicated end-to-end connection, While Connection-Oriented means that when devices communicate, they perform handshaking to set up an end-to-end connection.
IP is an example of the Connectionless protocols , in this kind of protocols you usually send informations in one direction, from source to destination without checking to see if the destination is still there, or if it is prepared to receive the information . Connectionless protocols (Like IP and UDP) are used for example with the Video Conferencing when you don't care if some packets are lost , while you have to use a Connection-Oriented protocol (Like TCP) when you send a File because you want to insure that all the packets are sent successfully (actually we use FTP to transfer Files). Edit :
In telecommunication and computing in
general, a connection is the
successful completion of necessary
arrangements so that two or more
parties (for example, people or
programs) can communicate at a long
distance. In this usage, the term has
a strong physical (hardware)
connotation although logical
(software) elements are usually
involved as well.
The physical connection is layer 1 of
the OSI model, and is the medium
through which the data is transfered.
i.e., cables
The logical connection is layer 3 of
the OSI model, and is the network
portion. Using the Internetwork
Protocol (IP), each host is assigned a
32 bit IP address. e.g. 192.168.1.1
TCP is the connection part of TCP/IP. IP's the addressing.
Or, as an analogy, IP is the address written on the envelope, TCP is the postal system which uses the address as part of the work of getting the envelope from point A to point B.
When two hosts want to communicate using connection oriented protocol, one of them must first initiate a connection and the other must accept it. Logically a connection is made between a port in one host and other port in the other host. Software in one host must perform a connect socket operation, and the other must perform an accept socket operation. Physically the initiator host sends a SYN packet, which contains all four connection identifying numbers (source IP, source port, destination IP, destination port). The other receives it and sends SYN-ACK, the initiator sends an ACK, then the connection are established. After the connection established, then the data could be transferred, in both directions.
In the other hand, connectionless protocol means that we don't need to establish connection to send data. It means the first packet being sent from one host to another could contain data payloads. Of course for upper layer protocols such as UDP, the recipient must be ready first, (e.g.) it must perform a listen udp socket operation.
The connectionless IP became foundation for TCP in the layer above
In TCP, at minimal 2x round trip times are required to send just one packet of data. That is : a->b for SYN, b->a for SYN-ACK, a->b for ACK with DATA, b->a for ACK. For flow rate control, Nagle's algorithm is applied here.
In UDP, only 0.5 round trip times are required : a->b with DATA. But be prepared that some packets could be silently lost and there is no flow control being done. Packets could be sent in the rate that are larger than the capability of the receiving system.
In my knowledge, every layer makes a fool of the one above it. The TCP gets an HTTP message from the Application layer and breaks it into packets. Lets call them data packets. The IP gets these packets one by one from TCP and throws it towards the destination; also, it collects an incoming packet and delivers it to TCP. Now, TCP after sending a packet, waits for an acknowledgement packet from the other side. If it comes, it says the above layer, hey, I have established a connection and now we can communicate! The whole communication process goes on between the TCP layers on both the sides sending and receiving different types of packets with each other (such as data packet, acknowledgement packet, synchronization packet , blah blah packet). It uses other tricks (all packet sending) to ensure the actual data packets to be delivered in ordered as they were broken and assembled. After assembling, it transfers them to the above application layer. That fool thinks that it has got an HTTP message in an established connection but in reality, just packets are being transferred.
I just came across this question today. It was bouncing around in my head all day and didn't make any sense. IP doesn't handle transport. Why would anyone even think of IP as connectionless or connection oriented? It is technically connectionless because it offers no reliability, no guaranteed delivery. But so is my toaster. My toaster offers no guaranteed delivery, so why not call aa toaster connectionless too?
In the end, I found out it's just some stupid title that someone somewhere attached to IP and it stuck, and now everyone calls IP connectionless and has no good reason for it.
Calling IP connectionless implies there is another layer 3 protocol that is connection oriented, but as far as I know, there isn't and it is just plain stupid to specify that IP is connectionless. MAC is connectionless. LLC is connectionless. But that is useless, technically correct info.
is it possible to send multiple tcp or udp packets on a single ip packet? are there any specifications in the protocol that do not allow this.
if it is allowed by the protocol but is generally not done by tcp/udp implementations could you point me to the relevant portion in the linux source code that proves this.
are there any implementations of tcp/udp on some os that do send multiple packets on a single ip packet. (if it is allowed).
It is not possible.
The TCP seqment header does not describe its length. The length of the TCP payload is derived from the length of the IP packet(s) minus the length of the IP and TCP headers. So only one TCP segment per IP packet.
Conversely, however, a single TCP segment can be fragmented over several IP packets by IP fragmentation.
Tcp doesn't send packets: it is a continuous stream. You send messages.
Udp, being packet based, will only send one packet at a time.
The protocol itself does not allow it. It won't break, it just won't happen.
The suggestion to use tunneling is valid, but so is the warning.
You might want to try tunneling tcp over tcp, although it's generally considered a bad idea. Depending on your needs, your mileage may vary.
You may want to take a look at the Stream Control Transmission Protocol which allows multiple data streams across a single TCP connection.
EDIT - I wasn't aware that TCP doesn't have it's own header field so there would be no way of doing this without writing a custom TCP equivalent that contains this info. SCTP may still be of use though so I'll leave that link.
TCP is a public specification, why not just read it?
RFC4164 is the roadmap document, RFC793 is TCP itself, and RFC1122 contains some errata and shows how it fits together with the rest of the (IPv4) universe.
But in short, because the TCP header (RFC793 section 3.1) does not have a length field, TCP data extends from the end of the header padding to the end of the IP packet. There is nowhere to put another data segment in the packet.
You cannot pack several TCP packets into one IP packet - that is a restriction of specification as mentioned above. TCP is the closest API which is application-oriented. Or you want to program sending of raw IP messages? Just tell us, what problem do you want to solve. Think about how you organize the delivery of the messages from one application to another, or mention that you want to hook into TCP/IP stack. What I can suggest you:
Consider packing whatever you like into UDP packet. I am not sure, how easy is to initiate routing of "unpacked" TCP packages on remote side.
Consider using PPTP or similar tunnelling protocol.