Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am trying to set up a P2P instant messaging system, and while I haven't hit the issue yet, I expect I will have some issues if the client is behind NAT on a local LAN (read: Everyone.)
Let me explain the algorithm and you'll see what I mean. There are three components: A server and two clients - Client Alice wants to initiate a chat with Client Bob. The server only keeps track of who is online, but the actual conversation doesn't go through the server (for privacy for the clients)
So, Alice and Bob both sign in to the server - Connecting to the server's static listening port from an ephemeral port. They tell the server what static port they are listening on for incoming chat requests. Alice asks the server how she can contact Bob. The server responds with the ipaddress and listening port, among other things. Alice sends the request to Bob on that IP address and port to establish the connection. Hope that makes sense.
If Bob is behind NAT, then sure he can talk to the server because he's the one who starts the communication. But Alice's request won't get to him because the NAT relationship hasn't been set up yet for the port he's listening on for chat requests, from Alice's IPaddress.
Is there some kind of black magic that someone knows to make this work? Will it be a non issue? Development isn't that far along, I haven't actually hit this problem yet.
To state the obvious, I don't want to have to make end users configure port forwarding for their listening ports.
For the aforementioned black magic, client and server are both in java, but I'm just generally after the algorithm (and if it's even possible)
Check ICE.
Most P2P frameworks, like JXTA in Java, use the principle of relay servers.
Say A wants to connect to B and B is behind a firewall.
- both A and B establish ** outbound ** synchronous (or full duplex/websockets) connections to Relay Server R
- A signals to R that it wants to transmit data to B
- R 'binds' the inbound connection from A to the outbound connection to B (the synchronous HTTP response to B for instance)
- A sends data to R which is relayed to B
The key thing here is that all connections are established outbound (an usually using a friendly firewall protocol like HTTP on well known ports)
Things get obviously a bit more involved when you have distributed relays; you then need 'routers' that maintain routes to various peers via the relays which rely on Distributed Hashmaps (DHTs) to maintain the information.
There is no black magic. If both clients are behind NAT the message has to go through a third party (the server).
And I would consider using such architecture for all communication if it's only about text messages (you can think of some kind of encryption if privacy is an issue). The server (or servers) will be more loaded but you get simpler (and in some cases more reliable) architecture. For instance, if Alice sends message to Bob, and Bob has some network issues, the server can queue and keep the message for some time and deliver it later (even if Alice goes offline). Another thing is conference (group) chat. Handling it with P2P only is much more challenging (but can be very interesting). But if all clients are behind NAT you get the same problem.
I would also strongly suggest implementing an application-level acknowledgment mechanism for all transmitted and received messages (both from client and server). Protocols such as TCP/IP are not reliable enough.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
So I previously asked a question if you can send a client that's on a ServerSocket to a different Server. But now, I'm asking how are the players for minecraft sent from server to server using Bungeecord and/or Lilypad. I know that LilyPad uses proxies and that stuff, but how are the players, when connected to the Bungeecord/Lilypad server, sent to a hub/spawn and/or to other servers, for example a survival server and a creative server. You can find servers like this on servers that have networks. I know that Treasure wars uses lilypad, if that helps.
You answered your own question. Both Bungeecord and LilyPad are proxy server networks.
Though a server cannot redirect the client to another server without permission, the server can connect to another server (meaning the first server is a proxy) and send back that server's messages to the client. As the first server is, in essence, also a client to the second server, the first server can switch connections at any desired point.
In other words, the Minecraft client does not switch connections at any point. The IP of the server to which the Minecraft client is connected never changes, and it is that of the proxy. However, what does change is the server to which the proxy is connected. If the client sends some message to the proxy stating that it wishes to go to the hub, the proxy then disconnects from whatever server it is currently connected to, connects to the hub, and sends back to the Minecraft client whatever messages the hub responds with.
This is my understanding based on a quick search.
However, if the Minecraft client was modded as well, it would be possible to have a similar network without the need for a proxy like so:
Client interacts with the server in such a way (maybe the player walks into a portal) as to trigger some server-switching action.
The server recognizes this interaction and, as both it and the client are modded, knows how to respond. The response is simply the sending of a message to the client, saying, "Switch to a different server. Here is the IP: (Insert IP here)"
The client receives the message from the server and, by its own will, disconnects from the current server and reconnects to the new one.
I am doing an android app allowing users to play online.
Currently, I use a TCP server: when two persons are connected, the server takes care of forwarding the packets between the two clients.
I would like to replace my server by a java servlet with google app engine. This new server will just be used to connect the two players.
It would work in that way:
Player A opens a server socket and then post to the server the connection details.
When a player B wants to play against A, he asks to the server the port number of A and he connects directly to A.
The problem is that I am not sure that it will work if player A is behind a NAT. When player A opens a server socket, that opens one port of its 192.168.x.y address, but does it ask to the box a port forwarding? I assume it doesn't...
So two questions:
Is it possible to make a direct connection TCP between two devices even when there is a NAT or a firewall (I don't know how firewalls work on Android...)
If it isn't possible, what is the best solution: Is it possible to make a TCP server to ensure the exchange of the messages with app engine?
Thank you by advance.
game
Creating direct TCP connection between users under different NAT is mostly possible. There are 4 types of NAT. FC, ARC, PRC, Symmetric. If one of player A or B has symmetric NAT then it is impossible to create TCP P2P connection. In this case you will have to use a server in the middle for exchanging data between two players.
For other types of NAT combinations it is very much possible but not guaranteed. The technique that is used to create TCP P2P connection is called TCP hole punching. Read this answer to know in details about this technique.
Also creating TCP P2P connection is not related to any platform.
First, the device itself is probably not going to be the main problem. If they are at home and using WiFi, you will probably have to deal with a cable modem/DSL modem, which typically includes a firewall. Also if they are at work (or a hotel, conference center, etc.), there may be a corporate firewall to deal with.
I believe most home cable/DSL modems support uPnP (Universal Plug and Play), which includes the Internet Gateway Device Protocol (IGD) designed to let devices determine the external IP address and set up port mappings. In general you can look up NAT traversal for ways to handle connections through a home modem/firewall. I will note that corporate firewalls are a different matter and many of these techniques won't work.
So probably I would recommend you be ready for at least the following four scenarios
Direct connection with nothing creating problems. You can test this by having the server do a test connection when the player first contacts the server. If this works, things are simple.
Home NAT device that understands uPnP. If you have a 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x-172.31.x.x, or 192.168.x.x number (typical home WiFi), then you can try to set up the NAT traversal and if that works you can send the appropriate information to your server. It probably would be worthwhile for the server to do a test connection just to be sure that things work.
If you have a firewall that you can't get around, then make a note on the server regarding player A, and when B tries to join A's game, look and see if B will accept connections, and if so then arrange for A to connect to B instead.
If none of the above work, then have A and B both connect to the server and have the server relay messages between A and B.
If you don't want to program all those possibilities, then option 4 is the one that is most likely to work, even if it does mean extra traffic going to/from your server. But note that for corporate networks, they may simply have a rule blocking unknown connections, and there may not be much you can do.
Edit: I was able to get a simple TCP server working on Android without anything special regarding Android itself, so removed a comment saying I didn't know about that.
As I am programming a network chat (java, but should not make a difference for the question), and wanted to use UDP, I ran into the problem of it not working over the internet. After a little research I found out that you have to have port forwarding for the specific port activated. So now it comes to my question:
Does UDP work over the Internet in a not configurable way?
For example, if I would program a whole Network Game would it make sense to use UDP? Or would I require the Player to activate Portforwarding and open the Port etc?
When would it make sense to use UDP then? And why?
I'm actually not understanding the whole point of UDP then.
For my programming point of view I would like to have a way to use it intuitive.
Like creating the DatagramSocket and the DatagramPacket, configure the Packet with the Data and the Destination and send it away over the internet.
As for my Users I don't want them to have to configure any specific things like opening the exact port they want to use etc. I just want them to use the program (server and client) and it should work.
The problem you've run into is not one of UDP vs TCP (although using the unreliable, unordered UDP as the basis of a chat application seems like an odd choice to me).
The problem is that of NAT traversal. In a nutshell, home routers perform a network function called NAT - Network Address Translation. They do it in order to use a single public IP address for all machines inside the NAT (which are given private addresses - usually 10.0.0.0 or 192.168.0.0). The router then switches the source IP address in all packets sent from inside the LAN from the private address to the public one. It uses port numbers to "remember" which machine sent what to what address, in order to perform the backwards translation when the response arrives.
The problem arises when someone wants to initiate a connection to a machine behind a NAT. Without seeing an outgoing connection first, the NAT doesn't know to which internal computer and port it should forward the packet. This is what happens to you.
There are various fixes for this issue, with the simplest one being manual port forwarding (as you've discovered), but it's a well known problem faced by any peer-to-peer application. If you need to contact a machine behind NAT (i.e. contact most home users) and you want your application to work out-of-the box (without your users fiddling with their routers) you need to research NAT traversal techniques, implement them in your application, and hope that the user's home routers support them. It's a huge pain in the neck.
EDITED: with Joachim Pileborg's correct suggestions!
UDP is often a better choice for action-based games, where it's vitally important to have updates to the client or server with the latest data about a player, player input, or the game world.
TCP begins with a 3-way handshake to establish a connection (which takes time). If your game communication protocol is via TCP, all packets in a message have to arrive before the message becomes available. Even a small amount of Internet congestion could cause your game to lag.
TCP is good for communications that MUST arrive in full.
With UDP, the client or server can send the latest player/game state in individual packets that do not depend on arriving in order. If a packet is late, or arrives out of order... it should be ignored.
UDP is good for communications that need to be fast, but losing individual packets is OK.
Both should be available in your Java platform.
Here's some further reading:
http://gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/udp-vs-tcp/
I am writing this game in Java and have problems with networking architecture.
I decided I will UDP packets. I am just at the beginning, but the problem I am facing is that it seems to be that server have to respond from exactly same IP/Port to client (which is behind router which uses NAT) as client connected that server.
For example I have client A behind router. Client A has IP (local) 192.168.8.100 and it connects server B from port 1234. Server is on 11.11.11.11:2345.
When client A connects to server B it uses 192.168.8.100:1234 but router converts that to (for example) 22.22.22.22:6789.
Now, when server wants to send packets to that client it has to be from 11.11.11.11:2345.
I would like to send data from another port like 11.11.11.11:2222, but this does not seem to work, at least not with my router.
I want to use different port because I want to have two threads one for listening and one for sending data, and each thread would have it's own DatagramSocket. But, as i said once client A connects to server on port 2345, I can not send data from port 2222.
Does anyone know how is this handled? I am doing it in Java, but it's not really a language specific problem.
UPDATE
After #Perception commented I have some more questions regarding his comments:
OK, so if I understand this correctly, if I have server which is hosting 1000 games, each with 2 players, all sending/receiving will have to be done through the same DatagramSocket.
As I understand DatagramSocket is thread safe so I guess I can have one thread doing:
datagramSocket.receive();
while at the same time second thread is doing
datagramSocket.send(.....);
Correct?
Also, two threads can send data at the same time through the same DatagramSocket? Is sending in any way serialized, meaning that second send() starts only after previous send() is finished or is data being sent at the same time?
gorann, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but it sounds like you're trying to control the port on which the server communicates with the client. There's no way to control this, and for good reasons.
This is one of the trickier differences between TCP and UDP.
When a new TCP session is initiated, the server side call to accept() gives you a new socket and the OS handles multiplexing the various sessions for you. With UDP, you need to handle the multiplexing yourself. But you need to do so in a way that works with NATs and other firewalls.
The way NAT works is that when it sees an outgoing packet, it creates a temporary rule allow packets to return along the same port pair. Data returning from a port that the client has not yet sent to will likely be blocked.
This gives you two choices:
You could do all of your communication through a single port. This is not a bad option, it just means that you need a way to identify client sessions and route them to the appropriate thread.
You could create a separate port and instruct the client to send to that one instead. Have the server listen on a fixed port. The client sends a message to there, the server then sets up a new session port and sends that number back to the client using the server's listen port. The client then sends a message to the session port, which causes the NAT to open up that port and allow return traffic. Now the client and server thread have their own private port pair.
Option 1 is a bit more work because it requires data to be exchanged between threads, but it scales up better. Option 1 is easier and more CPU efficient because each session thread can be independent, but there are a finite number of ports available.
Either way, I recommend that you have the client include a semi-unique session id in each packet so that the server has more than just the client address and port number to verify who belongs to each session.
I'm writting a java application, and I need to quickly discover any other running clients on any wired or wireless local networks in order to establish a TCP connection.
what's the best way of doing this? Are there libraries or code snippets that would do this?
Multicast UDP is a good way of doing this. It's used in a couple of technologies that support automatic discovery of networked devices over local IP networks (UPnP and ZeroConf).
Multicast UDP is not TCP, but it is still based on IP and, so, uses the same addressing mechanism i.e. IP addresses. Quite often it is compared to radio broadcasting i.e. a multicast sender only needs to send 1 message (i.e. it is like a broadcast) but only clients that are "tuned-in" to the multicast channel will receive it.
You can do a quick search on google or wikipedia for these as a starter, but the basic idea is as follows:
when a client starts, it sends out a multicast UDP "hello" message to some pre-specified multicast address and port (e.g. UPnP uses 239.255.255.250:1900)
existing clients are listening for incoming multicast "hello" messages on the specified address and port - when a client receives one, it sends a response to the sender
the client sending the "hello" message receives a response from each existing client on the network and is now aware of the IP address of each client
If you are looking for libraries to use, UPnP libraries can tend to be a bit heavyweight and a lot of folk generally don't like them, so ZeroConf might be a little more suitable. I don't know of any java implementations of such things but I'm sure you can find some with a little digging around.
A network scan can be very long, even longer on wireless networks. If you need them quickly thru Java you may implement a "meeting point" server on your network. This server listen to a predefined port, clients register on the server on startup and the server can distribute information about the clients on request.
HTH.
I guess you need to do a scan on your application's port on all IPs in your subnet.
Just what are the available IPs - or what is your subnet for that matter?
I'm afraid determining that could turn out to be impossible as the network is designed to be transparent to your application.
So, i'd use brute force: pick your IP and change the last byte. Might be too much, might be not enough though.
Or you send a broadcast (which usually would be targeted at x.x.x.255) and see who answers.
See Datagram Broadcasting and Multicasts. But i think that's not TCP/IP anymore.
There is a JGroups toolkit for reliable multicast communications. It allows automatic discovery of additional clients using Multicast techniques as described in other answers.
It also provides communication APIs on top of multicast sockets.
It is used in a number of projects such as JBoss, Tomcat and more to provide an infrastructure for distributed cache. See more here.