I've noticed recently that I don't have to forward ports for mmorpg's that I play.
I'm thinking about working on a game that people can play online and had a question.
Why is this the case given its a two way socket connection that is constantly sending data back and forth? Doesn't their server need to get through my firewall in order to connect to me?
TCP crash lesson: TCP is a two-way protocol. The challenge is that at least one host needs to initiate. Since within an MMORPG, your own computer is never acting as a server, nobody has to connect to it. All the information about game state is passed through the company's public facing servers that have public facing IP addresses (and hey, maybe they actually use port forwarding there, just to confuse my explanation... but you never have to see their pretty network internals, proxies, and other wizardry.).
Anyway, when you connect to Stackoverflow, you're making one outbound connection that requests data from the server, and then over that same connection you're receiving it back. Same exact scenario, only with a webserver instead of a game.
UPnP allows you to tackle many routers. There's also NAT Punch-Through if you have access to a third party that isn't behind a router.
Either way, port forwarding is only necessary if you wish to act as a server (or the sender in a P2P relationship). A client does not need to forward ports.
You don't need to forward ports to access the web either, despite data coming in as well.
When you make an outgoing TCP connection, your NAT router puts the connection in a table, so that when data comes in, it knows what machine in your LAN to send the packet to.
Everyone mentions TCP, but NAT works for UDP as well: The first outgoing UDP packet associates that source port with the internal IP address, and your NAT device will forward incoming traffic to that port to the correct host on the internal network.
In other words, if your computer requests the connection (outbound) first, the router opens up the port automatically, on the assumption that you're going to want data back. But if you want remote users to connect to your computer without your computer requesting it, the router would normally drop the packets since it wouldn't know where to send them (they were unsolicited). So instead, you need to tell the router to deliver any unsolicited packets at port N to your computer.
Sorry to add another answer so late, and I know one was already accepted, but I personally found the other answers to be more confusing than this simple explanation.
Related
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.
Suppose that I have a server and the clients are connected to the server. The server is accessible through a public ip.
I would like to "forward" the connection so that the clients would be directly connected to each other withouth the server in the middle.
I do not know if this is possible at all and I myself couldn't find a way to do it.
Other assumptions:
neither client has a public IP, both clients are behind a NAT
there can be more connections initiated if necessary
I am looking for a strictly software solution, without the need to reconfigure router, open ports, etc. etc.
The reason I would like to achieve this is to reduce the load on server. Once a two clients are associated together there is no real need (except technical one) to continue using the server as a, sort of, proxy. Direct client connection would also reduce the latency of the connection.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching. If neither machine has a public IP, and you can't open ports, and you don't want all data to pass through the server, this is probably the only other potential option. If this wouldn't work for you, you're likely stuck with all data going through the server. If you can set up port forwarding, that would make for a better solution, then just use the server to exchange IP and port information (as it exists at the time the connection is established).
A short answer is: it is not possible.
One of the main problems is that router do not know where to redirect the request from the server (or other client). Just a case : You have a router which has multiple devices(computer, cell phone...) behind it. It gets a request and do not know, who wants to get the request.
There is a workaround for that but it is not reliable (Does not work always.) Some Companies use it if it is possible, but they have always an alternative to that (like communication over server) if it fails. It is called nat punching. More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_hole_punching
I do not know for which reason do you need. If you need it for client server connection you can use something like long polling, call back....
Otherwise you need to set the router, or take the route over the server.
You can do two things one is hole punching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_hole_punching
so this will allow you to respond to your client who are behind NAT (you can configure your client to send their private ip and port number used by NAT to reply to them).
Other thing you can do is to make a peer-to-peer network as done by skype and make one of the client as relay network and keep track of active relay's and update them periodically. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype_protocol )
So now your server has to just act as proxy and as an admin which kind of manage all connection but least amount of info pass through it.
I hope this help.
Some home routers support upnp and can be instructed to open a certain port and forward it to a certain client on the LAN.
You can use upnpc on GNU/Linux to open ports on the router. It also has a library to do it from C code (but it's not very well documented).
However this method might not work on all home devices, so in that case see the other answers.
I know that ipchicken.com will tell you your router's ip address and the port it is using for your connection. But can this information be obtained "locally"? (Without relying on a website).
What I want it for is establishing a connection between two random hosts...without a "dedicated server" in the middle. My problem is to reach through the NAT. I think the best bet is a kind of TCP hole punching, where both hosts connect somewhere and then just tell each other (it can be by phone or chat or similar) the current ip address and the port number their routers are using. It should trick the routers into forwarding the packets to the hosts, albeit coming from a different source than they originally connected to.
Is it possible to find the port number your router is using to patch you through in a more local manner than ipchicken.com?
Are there any ideas on other possible approaches to this problem?
EDIT: Setting port forwarding on the router is not an option in this case, as many people (including me) do not have admin powers over their routers and I do not want to impose such a task on the "users" of my application
The router would use a different source port for every outgoing connection, so checking based on an outgoing connection will not work for your use case.
For an incoming connection, i.e., if you want to reach a specific machine behind a NAT device (like a home router), you'll have to explicitly open up some ports on the router and set up forwarding rules. The router would then listen for incoming connections on that port and forward it to a machine:port based on the configured rule.
How you do this would depend on the specific router make/model. Search the web or logon to the admin interface and look around, it should be easy to find. However make sure you understand the security implications of opening up a port on your router!
UPDATE based on edited question:
Without port-forwarding and if both devices are behind NAT, your only solution is to have an intermediary server! If only one of them is behind NAT, you can have that machine initiate the connection.
You could use a Stun server as the external globally reachable server.
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
Some background first. I have a .net client agent installed on each of the machines in the lan. They are interacting with my central server [website] also on the same lan.
It is important for my website to figure out which of the machines can talk to each other. For example, machines of one subnet cannot directly talk to machines of another subnet without configuring the routers and such. But machines in the same subnet should be able to talk to each other directly.
The problem I am facing is when the lan setup is like in Figure 1.
Because Comp1, Comp2 and Comp3 are behind a router, they have got the ipaddress 192.168.1.2 till 192.168.1.4. My client agent on these machines report the same ipaddress back to the server. However, machines Comp4, Comp5 also have the same ipaddresses.
Thus, as far as my server is concerned, there are 2 machines with the same ipaddress. Not just that, because the subnet mask is 255.255.255.0 for all machines, my server is fooled into thinking that Comp1 can directly talk to Comp5, which is not possible.
So, how do I solve this? What do I need to change in my client or in my server, so that I can support this scenario. These two are the only things in my control.
EDIT: Seems that the network diagram
is over simplified and there could be
multiple router/subnet levels. My
original answer will not handle this
scenario. Also, with the restriction
of modifying only the client app or server
app and not tampering with the
routers and firewalls makes
it more difficult.
EDIT2: Using 'arp -a' you can extract
the MAC address of the router. If the
client apps can manage to do this then
the puzzle is solved!
The client app knows the local machine address and passes it to the server app.
The server app knows the remote address when a connection comes in. This would be machine address or a router address.
From these two values you can work out what you ask.
For example:
Server app receives connection from 10.10.10.2 with client supplying 192.168.1.2
Server app receives connection from 10.10.10.3 with client supplying 192.168.1.3
The 'remote address' distinguishes the subnets.
So, all you need to figure out is how to extract the remote address of a client connection. If you are using any of the popular web technologies for your server app then this is very easy.
One approach is for the individual client machines to determine who they can see using a broadcast message. Have each client listen on some particular UDP port, and each client broadcast its presence to whatever the local broadcast domain is. When clients can see each other in this way, they can probably also make TCP connections to each other.
If the server needs to know which clients can talk to each other, just have the clients tell the server.
If the network diagram is complicated enough I think if would be very difficuilt to find what you need.
You should also take into account that Comp1 can establish direct connection to Comp6.
The solution I can suggest is probing. Client receives list of all other clients from server and tries to establish connection to each of them. I think that would be the only way to know which clients are REALLY accessible assuming any number of routers/firewalls/NATs in the network. Doesn'r scale much for a big number of computers of course.