I'm learning about network programming. Specifically proxy servers. I've created a very rudimentary proxy server on my mobile phone. However I think there's some proxy server basics that I don't know that will help me create a more robust proxy server.
What I've done so far: server on my mobile device listens for requests from laptop. When server receives a request like www.google.com the web page contents are fetched and returned to the client on the laptop. The client then opens the page contents in a desktop browser.
I think the sending/receiving of requests can happen on a lower OSI model layer (perhaps transport). How can I create a more robust proxy server? (one that just sends and receives bytes and doesn't care/know about HTTP)
A proxy server runs at the same layer as the protocol being proxied. It seems you are talking about an HTTP proxy. HTTP runs over TCP, and so does an HTTP proxy.
Define 'more robust'. What have you done so far?
An HTTP proxy server is a pretty simple thing, unless it has elaborate logging, caching, etc. The basis of it is (1) something to recognize and action the GET/POST/PUT/CONNECT etc. commands and (2) thereafter just copying bytes in both directions simultaneously.
Related
I know how load balancers work for http requests. A client opens a connection with the LB, LB forwards the request to the backend servers, LB gets a response and from the same connection it sends the response to the client and closes the connection. I want to know the internal details of load balancer for websockets. How the connections are maintained and how the response is sent to the client. I read many questions on stackoverflow but none of them gave a clear picture of the internal implementation of LB
the LB just route the connection to a server behind it.
so as long you keep the connection open you will keep being connected to the same server and do not communicate with the LB again.
depending on the client, on reconnection you could be routed to another server.
I'm not sure how it works when some libraries fallback to JSON-P tho
Implementations of load balancers have great variety. There are load balancers that support websockets, like F5's BIG-IP (https://support.f5.com/kb/en-us/solutions/public/14000/700/sol14754.html), and LB's that I don't think support websocekts, like AWS ELB (there is a thread where somebody says they could make it with ELB but I suppose they added some other component behind ELB: How do you get Amazon's ELB with HTTPS/SSL to work with Web Sockets?.
Load Balancer's not only act as terminators of HTTP connections, they can terminate also HTTPS, SSL, and TCP connections. They can implement stickiness based on different parameters, like cookies, origin IP, etc. (like F5) In the case of ELB's they use only cookies, and it could be application generated cookies or LB generated cookies (both only with HTTP or HTTPS). Also stickiness can be kept for certain defined time, sometimes configurable.
Now, in order to forward data corresponding to websockets, they need to terminate, and forward, connections at level of SSL or TCP (not HTTP or HTTPS). Unless they understand websocket protocol (I don't know if any does it). Additionally, they need to keep stickiness to the server with which the connetion was opened. This is not possible with ELB but yes with more complex LB's like BIG-IP.
I've written my own HTTP Server, but given certain criteria, I want to redirect some requests made to my server to another server running on the same machine. For example, I may want to redirect all requests to "/foo/*" to be handled by an apache server I also have running. What is the best way to do this?
The only way I can think of doing this is by running apache on a different port, and then making a completely new network request from my server to localhost:1234 (assuming apache is running on port 1234) with the same exact request headers and body, and then take the response and have my server send that back to the client.
That seems like a kind of hacky, roundabout way of accomplishing this though, and I'm sure this is a problem that is tackled by every major website. Is there a certain technology or protocol for doing this that I just haven't heard of?
Thanks a lot!
Edit: Just to be clear, the client should only make one network request for all this, rather than having my server return a 3xx response
HTTP runs over TCP. The Apache server can't just send the required response to a client who hasn't asked for it. The client has asked YOUR HTTP server for the data and so it must be the one to send a response. The client is probably behind a firewall and, as such, the Apache server can't even establish a TCP connection with it (incoming connections are usually blocked).
If your server takes the clients request, forwards it to the Apache server, gets the response from the Apache server and forwards it to the client, it's acting as a proxy server (a middleman). This won't be redirection.
The only sensible way to do this would be to have the client make two network requests.
i'm having a problem with my app, on a certain situation.
We have a java server with jetty webserver embedded, and an air app on the client side.
It is working properly but on a single situation of a certain customer.
They have a private network that is not administrated by them (and has little chances of being changed as request). So, the only port they allow are 80 and 443.
The communications between the server and the client are through websockets and http.
The "online" check is made through http and, then, we use websockets to notify the client in order to start communication between them.
The thing is, in this situation, the "online" state works properly and any communication send by the client (forced), as it goes through http, gets to the server but, when the server communicates with the client, using websockets, it doesn't work.
We are using wireshark to check the communications: On a working setup, when the client app starts, a websocket is shown on wireshark, on the server side (registering the client on the server). And, after that, websockets that are only used from server to the client, don't show also.
What can be the problem? The port 80? (the same happens with 443 on that network).
Can it be a proxy/firewall that are blocking ws:// messages?
I've read somewhere that wss:// (encripted websockets) would work?
Thanks for your help.
Edit, so, I tried with https and wss communication and the same thing happens.. no websocket is set between the client and server (registering the client on the server).
This situation is happening for http on the customer network. On my test network, it works on http/ws but not with https/wss..
There are many firewalls and gateways out "in the wild" that do not understand the whole WebSocket HTTP/1.1 GET -> UPGRADE -> WebSocket mechanism.
There are several broken firewall implementations will attempt to interpret the WebSocket framing as improper content for HTTP/1.1 (which is a bad reading of the HTTP/1.1 spec) and start to muck with it.
The types of firewalls that inspect/filter/analyze the request/response contents are the ones that seem most susceptible.
I would check that the hardware (or software) that they are using to firewall their network is both compliant and upgraded to support WebSocket RFC-6455.
At the moment I have an existing application which basically consists of a desktop GUI and a TCP server. The client connects to the server, and the server notifies the client if something interesting happens.
Now I'm supposed to replace the desktop GUI by a web GUI, and I'm wondering if I have to rewrite the server to send http packets instead of tcp packets or if I can somehow use some sort of proxy to grab the tcp packets and forward them to the web client?
Do I need some sort of comet server?
If you can make your client ask something like "Whats new pal?" to your server from time to time you can start implementing HTTP server emulator over TCP - its fun and easy process. And you could have any web based GUI.
You can just add to your TCP responds Http headers - itll probably do=)
So I mean HTTP is just a TCP with some headers like shown in here.
You should probably install fiddler and monitor some http requests/ responses you normally do on the web and you'll get how to turn your TCP server into http emulator=)
If you want keep sockets based approche use flash (there is some socket api) or silverlight (there is socket API and you can go for NetTcpBinding or Duplexbinding something like that - it would provide you with ability to receive messages from server when server wants you to receive them (server pushes messages))
So probably you should tall us which back end you plan to use so we could recomend to you something more usefull.
I've written a Flash (Flex) client connecting to a back-end server to exchange data.
I've also written my server from scratch, and it serves two purposes:
(1) Web (HTTP) Server- By default listens on port 80
(2) Socket/Application- Server - By default listens on port 443
Just FYI, both servers run in the same process space, for convenience reasons. They are not expected to handle massive loads, so I'm fine with that.
As soon as the Flash client is served to the browser from the HTTP socket, the client attempts to open an XMLSocket to the Socket/Application server.
I now want to implement HTTP tunneling, so that my client can connect to the Application server even if the user is behind a firewall. I do not want any external servers involved (proxies etc.) - simply use the servers I already have.
My questions:
(1) Is it better to use port 443 for that? (does it better fool firewalls?)
(2) As far as I can see, what I am required to do, is just ensure that my actual application data is simply encapsulated in an HTTP structure (preceded by a dummy HTTP header), both from the client and server sides. Is that so or am I missing anything here?
(3) Do I need to keep hiding/encapsulating my data every message I send through the socket, or can I just encapsulate the first message when opening the connection?
Thanks in advance guys!
Fuzz
Don't reinvent the wheel - use remoting via AMF protocol. AMF an HTTP-based binary format that performs serialization between ActionScript (MXML) and server side languages. Technically, this is HTTP tunneling.
Adobe offers BlazeDS (open source) and LCDS (commercial) implementations of AMF for AS/Java, but there are third-party implementations of AMF for AS/PHP, AS/Python, AS/Ruby, AS/.Net.
BTW, AMF is an open source format.