I am planning on a small project and need help regarding its feasibility.
I have a few wireless mobile devices (could be phones and laptops) which periodically broadcast packets and also each device listens for other broadcasts. Any device in range should receive the broadcasted data (no need to reply or ackwnoledge).
To perform this can I just send UDP packets with address 255.255.255.255, I heard this was deprecated. If so how do I achieve this? There is no underlying network topology so I cannot rely on multicast or is there a way?
If there are 100 such devices, all in wireless range, each 1 performing a periodic broadcast and receive, will it work? will there be too many collisions ? and become infeasible. Each device receiving 70% of the packets is a good performance according to me.
Thank You
Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way.
You won't be able to send IP-layer broadcast packets until you have associated with an access point. Once association has been made, only devices associated with the same AP (and other devices bridged to the IP over its wired interface) will see your broadcasts. The same goes for layer 2 broadcasts as well.
What you need is to get at a lower layer. Unfortunately, each WiFi adapter has different methods for doing this, and for many, it isn't even possible. I'm afraid what you are attempting will not work.
Related
My question is regarding an ESP8266 board and the ESP-touch technology.
ESP-touch uses the length field of a UDP package to broadcast wifi ID and PW through a device (like a smartphone) to the chip (like in my case ESP 8266).
I want to turn this around, more specifically:
I want the ESP8266 chip to broadcast UDP packets with some sort of identifier-number in the length field of the UDP packet, without beeing connected to any wifi connection. Then these UDP packets are recieved by an app on a smartphone so the identifier-number can be extracted and used on the smartphone.
I am relatively new to this topic and do not know if this can work.
When I try to find any information online they all say that the first step is to connect the chip to a wifi. But I don't want that. The smartphone and the chip don't know each other and are not connected in any way. So I want this type of "broadcasting" so that the smartphone can recieve the package without really beeing connected to the chip.
I guess there must be some way to make it function like I explained above, but I can't find a way how this can work.
I don't need the chip to send UDP packets explicitely, it can be any type of package. I took UDP packet as an example because there is already the ESP-touch technology which is more or less similar.
The important thing is that the package that I send has a field where I can put some identifier-number in (not encrypted), which can then be recieved by another device like a smartphone where this identifier-number is extracted.
For clarification: I don't need to use ESP touch or anything related to that. I only stated this technology as an example. I just want to achieve the behavior stated above and in the picture! :)
This is an example picture how I want it to work:
No, it's not possible to send any packages without being connected to the network. ESP-touch or TI Smart Config or similar technologies utilize Monitor mode. As the name suggests, in this mode one can listen for packages, but can't send them.
ESPNOW provides data flow between ESP devices without connections via router. It is another feature of the Espressive API. There are tutorials for ESP8266 and ESP32...
https://randomnerdtutorials.com/esp-now-esp8266-nodemcu-arduino-ide/ .. https://www.instructables.com/ESP32-With-ESP-Now-Protocol/
I'm new to networking.I have seen that it's possible to capture packets through wireshark.Having seen it a question arises in my mind.
Is wifi a hub?.I mean,if im able to receive(but ignore by system since those packets aren't intended for me as a client) what another client on the same NAT is receiving doesn't that mean that wifi connection works like a hub since hubs don't filter the destination.
Sorry for the bad way of asking and explaining!!
And thank you in advance!
Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) is a set of protocols that use a shared medium (radio waves). Because the medium is shared, much like the old ethernet (IEEE 802.3) 10BASE-2 coax, all hosts on the medium can hear all traffic on the medium. Neither uses a hub.
A hub is something that was created to allow ethernet to use UTP in the same manner that ethernet could use coax cable. Ethernet has multiple standards to allow it to use different media, but many don't have hubs (specific to a medium and some ethernet standards), and neither does Wi-Fi.
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.
I read a lot about WiFi sensors being used to track smart phones in Retail environment. The location triangulation is done on basis that a smart phone has its WiFi turned ON, be it in connected or unconnected state.
Case 1 : WiFi turned ON but unconnected
Why should a smart phone which has its WiFi turned ON need to transmit the packets, unless the user 'scans' for nearby WiFi networks?
Case 2 : WiFi turned ON and connected
Why should a smart phone transmit any packets, unless the user is browsing the net?
In both the above cases, there is a high chance that most of the time the WiFi device does not send any packet, which means none of the WiFi sensors detect it. If that is true, then the whole idea behind WiFi sensor based triangulation in Retail goes for toss, clearly with so many companies working on this, I must be wrong. Please answer with more than a yes or no, as to which packets are generally sent in both the above scenarios.
If wifi is turned on it will periodically search for new networks. This happens even if you are already connected to one, as it allows the device to connect to a 'better' network, if available.
Scanning/network discovery can be done in two ways. First is passive when a device listens to surrounding access point's (AP) beacon frames. These are basically advertisements for their network. The second method is called active. This is the most likely explanation of how the technology you mentioned works. Active scanning is when the device sends out a probe frame asking for available APs. These are generally ones that you have associated with previously, e.g. Your home network. These probes can be listened to from nearby 802.11 (wifi) devices, therefore tracking you.
Active and passive scanning
801.11 frames
As mentioned in #AndrewLeeming answer, one of the causes for data transmission data is scanning.
It's not necessary but normally it will be performed to find a network to connect to (or a better network in case of already connected). Active scanning can be turned off for power saving reasons. Passive scanning doesn't involve transmissions, so it's irrelevant to this question.
However, the most important reason for WiFi devices to transmit packets while connected is to let the AP know that the client is still available. Otherwise the AP will drop the link after a certain period of time without activity. Additionally, the clients might be in power save mode and instruct the AP not to transmit data to them. From time to time the client will inquire the AP to see if there are any pending packets for it.
If you have a switch with at least one subscriber to a multicast address, how much additional load would each additional subscriber add?
Example:
You have a 10G switch (with IGMP) with 10 servers and no other activity.
When Server1 subscribers to a 1G multicast feed, the switch will have 1G of load.
What would the load be after Server2 and Server3 subscribed?
Obviously traffic to the switch would not increase, but what about the switch's internal load?
Houw would the answer be different without IGMP?
The whole idea of multicast is that it is efficient. The presence of one subscriber downstream causes the switch to send an IGMP join request of its own upstream and pass incoming multicasts downstream, without duplication. The addition of further downstream subscribers has no effect at all except to increment an internal subscriber count for that group. When that goes back to zero it sends an IGMP leave request of its own upstream.
I don't know what you mean by 'without IGMP'. There is no such thing as UDP multicast without IGMP. It is a contradiction in terms.
Firstly, some background information for you.
The traditional definition of routers and switches are along the lines of:
Router: a device capable of routing a packet form one IP subnet to a different IP subnet
Switch: a device capable of switching a packet within the same IP subnet
However, this traditional definition no longer holds these days because we have switches that can route traffic from one IP subnet to another IP subnet and even perform complex operations such as QoS at wire speed.
Therefore it is often easier to redefine Routers and Switches as follows:
Router: a device that uses the CPU to route packets, often inspects parts of packets that are higher up the OSI layer.
Switch: a device with ASIC(s) (a.k.a switching chips) that switches/routes traffic at full wire speed. What this means is that if the switch has 24 1Gbps ports, it will be able to switch 24Gbps bi-directional traffic without dropping any packets.
Now, to answer your question, it is important to determine whether the ASIC in your switch is capable of handling multicast traffic or not. If so, adding "load" really isn't an issue, as long as you ensure that each switch port is not congested (e.g. 2Gbps of traffic trying to egress out of 1Gbps port). If the ASIC in your switch is NOT capable of handling multicast traffic, it is highly likely that the switch will simply send all multicast traffic up to the CPU. Then it would be up to the software to determine where each packet goes. CPUs on switches are not powerful, because their primary role isn't to route/switch packets, but to manage the switch (e.g. configure the ASIC so that packets get switched properly). Therefore, if your switch is sending packets up to the CPU, the switch will struggle. You won't get anywhere near 1Gbps of multicast via the CPU.
Without IGMP, switches, by default, will flood out the traffic on all ports. Again, this is not a problem for the switch itself because it can handle this at wirespeed. It may cause problems for other parts of the network because traffic is needlessly being duplicated.
The reason for this long answer is because the phrase "10G switch" in your example is quite misleading, and it led me to believe that you maybe thinking that a powerful CPU sits at the center of the switch that is capable of performing 10Gbps bi-directional switching. This is simply not the case, and talking about "load" on a switch therefore often makes little sense.
I hope this helps.