I am developing a networked application that runs on a few different computers on a LAN. One of the core needs is for the app to maintain a list of peers on the LAN with which it has communicated in the past, so that it can restore previous sessions. The naive solution would be to just remember the IP and store it in a table, but what happens when the IP of a peer changes?
Instead, I thought I'd store the hostname of the peers so even if the IP changes they will still be reachable via their hostname. (I know hostnames can change as well but that is good enough).
So my question is what exactly is needed to make hostname resolution work on a LAN with mixed Windows/Mac/Linux clients?
Without the use of a central authority the only reliable way to achieve this is through the use of zerconfiguration name resolution. This means that without a multicast router you will only be able to dynamically resolve peers on the same subnet as the resolving host. You could use something like bonjour for mac, netbios or ssdp for windows or avahi for linux but you can't assume that these are enabled. I may be overlooking some more popular protocols that perform this function well but I would personally throw together a quick udp broadcast name resolution protocol for your application. Take a look at these for some more ideas:
Zeroconf Name resolution
Universal local network name resolution method without DNS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_configuration_networking#Name_resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_address#IP_networking
I would pick a specific udp port to listen on (lets say 12000) and then when you're ready to resolve hosts send a "hello" udp packet out to 255.255.255.255 on port 12000 and all of the other hosts on your network running your app should reply with a packet containing their hostname, possibly other information.
Related
I have an embedded webserver running on a device. Now I want a smartphone app to connect to the webserver. They are on the same wifi network but they don't know each others IP addresses.
I understand that this problem is often solved by implementing the mDNS protocol on the server. But are there any alternatives? Can the server maybe ask for specific IP address or similar?
If it has to be entirely automated, such that the embedded webserver is discoverable, perhaps scan the entire netblock looking for the correct response "http://[IP_address]/yes-im-the-one" from your embedded webserver?
Although beware, some network monitors may then consider the IP of your smartphone/device that does that scan "dangerous" and cut it off from the network - this is probably only a "big enterprise" problem.
...after you "find" your server, perhaps the application should cache/remember this, so it doesn't have to scan next time.
Other things you could do: give your embedded webserver a static IP on the LAN, either by setting this on the device itself, or via a DHCP reservation from whatever is the local DHCP server on the LAN.
What allot of emended devices do is come delivered with a static LAN IP already set on it, then it's up to the sysadmin to change their computer's IP temporarily to be in the same range, then they can visit the webserver or telnet into the default IP, and change it to what they want (to match their network's IP range)
I have a server and a few clients, software-wise, and I want the client to figure out the IP address of the server without actually referring to a specific database.
I had a misconception about UDP up until now that UDP only used the Port as a common identifier between servers and clients, but I was wrong apparently.
Requirement:
I want my server to broadcast a message to ALL devices on the network, once every 5 seconds or so.
That message will contain the IP of the server.
Software using such technique already:
A photo transfering app for iOS, called "Photo Transfer App" is really easy to use because it basically tells you to open the app on your Mac and on your iPhone, and then you press "Discover", and BAM! your devices have found each other.
But how?
How can my requirement be achieved?
EDIT
I googled a bit. Could server host on 255.255.255.255and clients connect to that address solve my problem?
According to this Wikipedia article, 255.255.255.255 is used for broadcasting.
Can someone confirm?
If you will use broadcast address (255.255.255.255) or network broadcast (like 192.168.1.255 for network 192.168.1.xxx or in the prefix notation 192.168.1.0/24). You will get essential limitation: your broadcast will NEVER leave that network. So all host inside the LAN will see your broadcast message but nobody else.
Multicast as mentioned by null is better because it can leave your network and pass through the IP routers. But this is feasible only by special network settings on that routers (and require multicast routing capability on that routers).
Another technology without such limitation can be use is dynamic DNS (server will register itself via DNS).
Multicast would be better than broadcast. See also: Bonjour, multicast DNS & SSDP.
More information on Bonjour is available here.
I'm trying to develop an applicaton for p2p communication between two android devices. In order to punch a hole through my NAT(s), I'd need to know my external ip address and port.
To that end, I've developed a java server on GAE to report my "remote" ip address and port. The problem is that on GAE I can get my ip address, but not my port. Without it, I'm unable to successfully punch the hole.
So, my question is what's the best, free method to find out my external IP address and port?
That's a question that has no answer with TCP.
Here's the problem: your "port" is not a fixed value. You don't have "an" external port. You typically get one dynamically assigned for each outbound connection.
As answers you should see from the test sites posted in another answer clearly indicate, it's a moving target (though it may stay stationary for a short time due to the browser using HTTP/1.1 keepalives and actually reusing the same connection, not just the same port)... but if you hit the site repeatedly, you'll see it either drift around randomly, or increment. Trying it from two different web browsers on the same machine, you'd never see the same port number -- the port corresponds to the specific source connection, not the machine sourcing the connection.
Sometimes, you may find that it's the same port number as the port your machine's stack opened for the outbound connection, but even when it is, it doesn't matter, because no traffic should be able to return to your machine on that port unless it is from the IP address and port of the machine to which you made the outbound connection. Any decent network address translating device would never accept traffic from another source IP address and/or port, other than the one you addressed in the outbound connection.
There is no standard, simple, predictable, reliable, or consistent way to punch a hole in TCP NAT and then exploit that hole for a peer-to-per connection. To the extent that such things are possible in a given NAT implementation, that is an implementation that is shoddy, broken, defective, and insecure.
See also: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5128
Sounds like your app could use a STUN server to get its external address.
I have an application that relies on IP addresses for communication (Domain names simply does not work. :(... )
Its function is to connect to its peer on the other machine and send data over after establishing trust. During the "trust establishing" phase they both exchange their IPs for future communication. They both are behind the two different firewalls and are NATted. One is in our NATted office network and other is in the cloud NATted behind their firewall. The applications knows their respective private IPs and exchange that (the 10.x.xxx.xxx range), when they try to connect back to each other (using the private IPs with range 10.x.xxx.xxx) for transferring data they fail. The connection is TCP and the port range is pretty varied.
I am curious if there is anyway I can hard code (for this one time) a rule (at may be firewall level or some place outside my application) that says if there is a connection being initiated for IP address 10.x.xxx.xxx then redirect it to 205.x.xxx.xxx?
Private IP address ranges like 10.x.y.z are, by their very nature, private.
You can't do any meaningful resolution unless each node in between the endpoints has rules in place to translate these.
Translation is tricky, all the main tools you would use cater for static translation (port forwarding, e.g. where a particular port is forwarded to a particular IP). This is one avenue, but it is a hacky one (it requires you to open lots of ports, procedurally update your router and probably have some sort of broker server to maintain mappings).
Alternatively, you could run the isolated networks over a VPN, which would give your endpoints mutual private IPs which you can use to connect to eachother. It would simply be a case of binding to this new address and communicating across the VPN. This would also potentially encrypt your communication over the internet.
Other possibilities are to use NAT/TCP punchthrough techniques which can allow traversal, but these are really a patch to a broken network topology (Read up on IPv6 to see how this can be alleviated).
Alternatively, you could route all the connections over a proxy, but this will complicate matters compared to a VPN.
To answer the question about hardcoding a rule, port forwarding is the solution here. It will obviously depend on your router configuration for the peer accepting the connection, but this client should have the port target port forwarded to the machine. This will obviously not scale very well and is really shifting to a server/client architecture for one connection!
Depending on your hardware, you may be able to forward a range of ports (if a single port cannot be established) and limit the port forwarding to certain incoming connections (the external IPs).
Information on port forwarding can be found at http://portforward.com/
This sounds a lot like what you'd want out of a VPN. Is there anyway that you could set one up? Basically the Site-To-Site VPN between you and the cloud would say 'oh hey, here is an ip located on the remote network, go ahead and connect through the link'. Would this kind of solution work in your case?
Something along these lines: http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/dynimg/IC589512.jpg
we have little network devices which are shipped with IP address 0.0.0.1 to ensure that they never collide with any other device in their new environment (thus none of the 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x or 192.168.x.x ranges) until configuration. DHCP is no solution since there might be no DHCP server in the field.
The devices would listen to UDP broadcasts and answer with broadcasts until they are given their new IP address this way.
This worked fine with Windows XP - but sucks with Windows 7: the config program does not receive the answer packets from the devices which still have 0.0.0.1. Wireshark sees the packets, then they are dumped by the system.
Question: Is there any reason (RFC?) that actually prohibits using this address in a local environment? Or is it just MS that was overcautious? Where can I read why they treat this address "invalid"? Which ranges are really "invalid" now, too?
Any idea of a workaround on the PC side (Win 7)?
I know that it is not recommended to use 0.xxx addresses for work places, but for this very reason - having a not-used address - it works perfectly.
Edit: there is a device out there called "Netburner" which might have faced the similar issue, according to their forum. See: http://forum.embeddedethernet.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=612&p=2198 Does - by coincidence - anybody know some background information?
It sounds as if your configuration application is listening for broadcast packets on all network interfaces and expecting to receive packets from foreign subnets.
That should not work - the OS should only pass-on broadcast packets from the subnets each network interface is on, not from all subnets on the same physical (e.g. Ethernet) segment. I am reasonably certain that doing otherwise is broken behaviour WRT the IP protocol.
The are two ways to deal with this:
Make sure that your network interface has an IP address in the target subnet. You can have more than one IP addresses for each network card, so that should not interfere with normal network operations.
Configure or modify you application to use raw sockets, like Wireshark. Keep in mind, however, that this overrides all normal checks and balances and should be avoided, since it can cause behaviour that is almost impossible to diagnose - which is why it is frowned upon by meny network administrators.
Can you you add new routing table entries to Windows machines easily? Windows has to know which interface to use when routing a broadcast packet to the 0.0.0.x network.
The Unix machines I'm familiar with have a routing table that maps network/netmask entries to either gateways or interfaces (if the network is a local network). The local network (192.168.0.0/16 for my home network) gets sent to interface eth0. Everything else 0.0.0.0/0 gets sent to a specific gateway machine 192.168.0.1.
If my machine sent a UDP broadcast message to network 0.0.0.0/24 (in other words, UDP broadcast sent to 0.0.0.255, then my machine would forward the packet to the gateway machine (which it can look up via arp). The switches in the middle wouldn't propagate the packet to other network devices, because the MAC address is set.
If my machine had another routing entry for 0.0.0.0/24 to the local interface, then my machine would send the packet on the wire using an ethernet broadcast group, and the switches would forward the packet to all connections. (Yay! Just like hubs in the 90s! :)
So I figure you need to add a routing entry for 0.0.0.0/24 to your client machines, so that they can properly address the broadcast packet.