so i'm trying to send udp packet to a listening port on a computer which is not connected to the same LAN but has internet access via gen_udp in erlang.
I start my first node by opening the port
({ok, Socket} = gen_udp:open(8887).) and the open the port on the other node the same way, When i send a packet from one node to the other via gen_udp:send i don't receive anything (trying flush() on the receiving node), So i'm wondering if there is something i'm doing wrong ? , i checked the firewalls and erlang and epmd is permitted.
did you try setting the controlling process of the Socket as the current process via :
gen_udp:controlling_process(Socket,Pid) ?
You should then setup a receive loop and messages will be sent to you. The format of the messages should be : {udp, Socket, IP, InPortNo, Packet}
You could also try setting the socket to passive mode by using inet:setopts(Socket, [{active, false}]) after you have opened it. After which you can use 'gen_udp:recv/3` to read from the socket.
Related
I am a beginner in Labview, developing an application to send data retrieved by an acquisition model (CRIO) to my PC via wifi. I used the TCP protocol, as indicated in the attached program. I have an application on my PC listening to the traffic being sent and received. Unfortunately, it is not receiving any data.
http://we.tl/8WZeeqehdr
What you need to do is to create a TCP listener. You do not have to specify the IP address, as the listener will use the network resources to listen. When the listener is up and running use your socket test to connect to it.
Please see the changes to your code ( I carved out the timed loop etc .. as I needed to run this on the my PC to test )
I have a ssh tunnel setup using libssh. However, this does not bind it to a local port, so what I need essentially is to forward all data received on a port to the ssh channel. However, when I do this:
QTcpSocket* socket = new QTcpSocket();
socket->bind(27017);
QObject::connect(socket, &QTcpSocket::readyRead, this, &Forwarder::newData);
The newData slot is never invoked i.e. the readyRead on QTcpSocket is never invoked. Whenever I try to connect to the port via an external script, I get an Operation timed out. I am sure that atleast the port is opened because when the Qt application is not running, the error I get is Connection refused.
I have considered using QTcpServer, however, how do I even handle this case? I will probably get newConnection signals, but what data do I write to the ssh channel? How would I handle multiple incoming connections for a QTcpServer? Isn't a connection request also a data packet? Can I just not forward everything to the channel (The ssh channel I am referring to is akin to a fd that I can simple write to).
Suppose two web browsers are running on the same computer and are accessing the same website (in other words, accessing the same IP address on the same port).
How does the operating system recognize which packets are from/for which program?
Does each program have a unique id field in the TCP header? If so, what is the field called?
The two programs are not actually accessing the "same port." For purposes of TCP, a connection is defined by the tuple (src_ip,src_port,dst_ip,dst_port).
The source port is usually ephemeral, which means it is randomly assigned by the OS. In other words:
Program A will have:
(my_ip, 10000, your_ip, 80)
Program B will have:
(my_ip, 10001, your_ip, 80)
Thus, the OS can see those are different "connections" and can push the packets to the correct socket objects.
the source port number will be different even if the destination port number is the same. the kernel will associate the source port number with the process.
When the client opens a connection to destination port 80, it uses an arbitrary unused source port on the local machine, say 17824. The web server then responds to that client by sending packets to destination port 17824.
A second client will use a second unused port number, say 17825, and so the two sockets' packets will not be mixed up since they'll use different port numbers on the client machine.
Christopher's answer is partially correct.
Programs A and B actually have a handle to a socket descriptor stored in the underlying OS's socket implementation. Packets are delivered to this underlying socket, and then any process which has a handle to that socket resource can read or write it.
For example, say you are writing a simple server on a Unix like OS such as Linux or Mac OSX.
Your server accepts a connection, at which point a connection consisting of
( src IP, src Port, dest IP, dest Port )
comes in to existence in the underlying OS socket layer. You then fork a process to handle the connection - at this point you now have two processes with handles to the socket both of which can read / write it.
Typically ( always ) the original server will close it's handle to the socket and let the forked process handle it. There are many reasons for this, but the one that is not always obvious to people is that when the child process finishes it's work and closes the socket the socket will stay open and connected if the parent process still has an open handle to it.
By port number.
IP address is used to identify computer, and port is used to identify process(application) within the computer. When a port is used by one process, other processes can't use it any more. So if any packet is sent to that port, only the owner of that port can handle that packet.
Connections are identified by a pair of endpoints.
– Endpoint means (ip, port)
Os assigns random number as src port number so, when packet travels to the receiving side, it is treated as different process's msg, since src port numbers are different.
Iam trying to create an iterative server based on datagram sockets (UDP).
It calls connect to the first client which it gets from the first recvfrom() call (yes I know this is no real connect).
After having served this client, I disconnect the UDP socket (calling connect with AF_UNSPEC)
Then I call recvfrom() to get the first packet from the next client.
Now the problem is, that the call of recvfrom() in the second iteration of the loop is returning 0. My clients never send empty packets, so what could be going on.
This is what Iam doing (pseudocode):
s = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)
bind(s)
for(;;)
{
recvfrom(s, header, &client_address) // get first packet from client
connect(s,client_address) // connect to this client
serve_client(s);
connect(s, AF_UNSPEC); // disconnect, ready to serve next client
}
EDIT: I found the bug in my client accidently sending an empty packet.
Now my problem is how to make the client wait to get served instead of sending a request into nowhere (server is connected to another client and doesn't serve any other client yet).
connect() is really completely unnecessary on SOCK_DGRAM.
Calling connect does not stop you receiving packets from other hosts, nor does it stop you sending them. Just don't bother, it's not really helpful.
CORRECTION: yes, apparently it does stop you receiving packets from other hosts. But doing this in a server is a bit silly because any other clients would be locked out while you were connect()ed to one. Also you'll still need to catch "chaff" which float around. There are probably some race conditions associated with connect() on a DGRAM socket - what happens if you call connect and packets from other hosts are already in the buffer?
Also, 0 is a valid return value from recvfrom(), as empty (no data) packets are valid and can exist (indeed, people often use them). So you can't check whether something has succeeded that way.
In all likelihood, a zero byte packet was in the queue already.
Your protocol should be engineered to minimise the chance of an errant datagram being misinterpreted; for this reason I'd suggest you don't use empty datagrams, and use a magic number instead.
UDP applications MUST be capable of recognising "chaff" packets and dropping them; they will turn up sooner or later.
man connect:
...
If the initiating socket is not connection-mode, then connect()
shall set the socket’s peer address, and no connection is made.
For SOCK_DGRAM sockets, the peer address identifies where all
datagrams are sent on subsequent send() functions, and limits
the remote sender for subsequent recv() functions. If address
is a null address for the protocol, the socket’s peer address
shall be reset.
...
Just a correction in case anyone stumbples across this like I did. To disconnect connect() needs to be called with the sa_family member of sockaddr set to AF_UNSPEC. Not just passed AF_UNSPEC.
I've been trying to do TCP communication using my Wavecom Fastrack modem. What I want to achieve is make the modem connect to a specified TCP server port to enable me to transfer data to and from the server. I found some information on than in the user's guide.
Basing on the information you can find on page 66 I created an application that opens the serial port to which the modem is connected and writes the following AT commands:
AT+WIPCFG=1 //start IP stack
AT+WIPBR=1,6 //open GPRS bearer
AT+WIPBR=2,6,11,"APN" //set APN of GPRS bearer
AT+WIPBR=2,6,0 //username
AT+WIPBR=2,6,1 //password
AT+WIPBR=4,6,0 //start GPRS bearer
AT+WIPCREATE=2,1,"server_ip_address",server_port //create a TCP client on port "server_port"
AT+WIPDATA=2,1,1 //switch do data exchange mode
This is exactly what the user's guide says. After the last command is sent to the modem, the device switches to data exchange mode and from then on everything what is written to the serial port opened by my application should be received by the server and everything the server sends should appear in the input buffer of that port.
The thing is that I did not manage to maintain stable bidirectional communication between the server and my modem. When I write some data to the serial port (only a few bytes), it takes a lot of time before the data appears on the server's side and in many cases the data does not reach the server at all.
I performed a few tests writing about 100 bytes to the serial port at once. Logging the data received by my server application I noticed that the first piece of data (8-35 bytes) is received after a second or two. The rest of the data appears in 2-5 seconds (either as a whole or in pieces of the said size) or does not appear at all.
I do not know where to look for the reason of that behaviour. Did I use wrong AT commands to switch the modem to TCP client mode? I can't believe the communication may be so slow and unstable.
Any advice will be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
what OS are you running? Windows does a pretty good job of hiding the messy details of communicating with the GPRS modem, all you have to do is create a new dial-up connection. To establish the connection you can make a call to the Win32 RasDial function. Once connected, you can use standard sockets to transfer data on a TCP port.
i have been using wavecomm modem for 2 years now.As far as i know from my experience is that if you are able to send some of the data then you can send all of the data.
the problem might be in the listening application which receives the data on the server side.
It could be that it is unable to deal with the amount of data that you are trying to send.
try sending the same data in smaller busts
with some delay in between them,then you might receive all data intact.