I'm working on an application that interfaces with embedded equipment via the SNMP protocol. To facilitate testing, I've written a simulator for the embedded equipment with Nodejs and the snmpjs library. The simulator responds to SNMP gets/sets and sends traps to the managing application. The trap messages are constructed by the snmpjs library, but sent manually using Node's standard UDP sockets.
This works well when simulating one equipment, but I've run into an issue when attempting to simulate multiple equipment. Specifically, the managing application identifies the source equipment of SNMP traps by analyzing the source IP/port of the UDP packet carrying the trap. This precludes my simulating multiple equipment simultaneously, which is the most common use case for the application.
So, my question is: Is there some way to control/spoof the source IP or port of the udp packet with Nodejs? Or, perhaps, would it be possible to use some kind of proxy to achieve the desired result?
(Note: Running the simulators on a single machine is a strict requirement. Also, it is not sufficient that I have unique IPs/ports for each simulator, I must be able to know their values ahead of time so that I can configure the managing application to interface with them correctly.)
The solution was simple. I overlooked this line from the node documentation for the send method of udp sockets, "If the socket has not been previously bound with a call to bind, it's assigned a random port number..." I just needed to bind the socket to a port first. I've verified this with a test script.
Related
For learning purposes I'm implementing TCP (for now just RFC 793) but I have no
idea how to test it. Most TUN/TAP stuff on the internet are out of date (e.g.
Linux API calls no longer work) and just doesn't explain enough. In addition, I
feel like a creating a device and forwarding packages etc. are not the best way
for learning purposes. For example, I'd rather only override socket(),
listen(), connect(), accept(), send(), recv() etc. in a program rather
than forwarding all ethernet traffic to a device/program that does the
bookeeping for the whole system rather than for a single program.
I'm wondering if this is possible. If not, I'd like to know the simplest way to
test a TCP implementation on Linux.
Because I'm following RFC 793, it'd be great if I could have an IP (Internet
Protocol as mentioned in the RFC) API in my application. Is this possible or do
I have to mess with TUN/TAP stuff?
Thanks..
If we talk about research I strongly recommend you read Engineering with Logic: Rigorous Test-Oracle Specification and
Validation for TCP/IP and the Sockets API
It contains section about testing TCP/IP implementation:
"EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION: TESTING INFRASTRUCTURE"
You could try setting up two peers, one using a RAW socket and the other a TCP socket.
If they can communicate and packets are really delivered/recovered the same way TCP does, you know that your custom implementation is successful.
C sockets
C RAW sockets
C TCP implementation
All you need is to intercept all tcp packets with bits (syn, ack, fin, etc.) your application has sent and to see if it works properly:
It could simply be done with wireshark or other sniffer. When testing you will see all tcp packets with bits you've sent.
In order you want to see linux system calls which your application are calling, you can use GDB or any other debugger.
I am recently writing some tool for testing some network processes that run across different hosts.
I am tempted to the idea that when testing, instead of running the client and server in different hosts, I can run them within one host.
Since the client and server are using TCP to communicate, so I think this should be fine, except one point below:
Is the TCP socket behavior the same when communicating data within the same host as the case of across hosts?
Will the data be physically present to the NIC interface and then routed to the target socket? Or the kernel will bypass the NIC interface under such scenarios? (Let's limit the OS as only Linux here for discussion)
There seems little specification regarding to such case.
==== EDIT ====
I actually notice some difference between intra-host and inter-host communications.
When doing inter-host communications, my program can successfully get hardware timestamp. But with the exact same code to run within the same host, the hardware timestamp disappears. When supported and enabled, hardware timestamp of TCP packet is available, and is returned as the ancillary data of recvmsg along with the received TCP data. Linux kernel timestamp doc has all the related info.
I checked the source code, the only difference is that whether the sender is within the same host of the receiver, no other difference.
So I am wondering whether Linux kernel will bypass the NIC and present the data directly to the receiver when doing intra-host communication, thus cause the issue.
Will the data be physically present to the NIC interface and then routed to the target socket?
No. There is typically no device that provides this capability, nor is there any need for one.
Or the kernel will bypass the NIC interface under such scenarios?
The kernel will not use the NIC unless it needs to send or receive a packet on a network. Typically, NICs can only return local packets if put in a test or loopback mode, which would require them to stop listening to the network.
Can anyone tell me which Communication Protocol is used by hyperterminal connecting via Tcp/Ip ?
Protocol here means UDP, Socket/Server, other(If any).
Actually, I need to design an application (in QT, Linux as OS) to communicate to a machine (basically a printer) via Ethernet. I need to send request to the printer as well as receive response, if any, from the printer.
It can be communicated via Hyperterminal using Tcp/IP.
So I wonder which protocol should i use for the communication. As Printer simply supports ethernet therefore I have no idea, if I can use Socket/Server for communication.
Need suggestion over this. All idea/suggestion are welcome.
Thanks in Advance
You need to get your terminology right. TCP/IP and UDP are transport layers. A protocol refers to the application data that is transmitted over a transport. A socket is a programming API that allows an application to gain access to a transport so it can send/receive protocol data.
Now, to answer your question - HyperTerminal typically uses the Telnet protocol over TCP/IP. Many protocols in existence are text-based, and Telnet is largely compatible with simple ASCII text, which makes it convenient for allowing users to use Telnet UI clients, like HyperTerminal, to manually send text commands to network-connected devices. However, most devices/protocols do not use the actual Telnet protocol. But if you can communicate with a device using HyperTerminal, you can code your app to send/receive the same text commands.
I have an interesting problem. I am working on an embedded box with multiple instances of Linux running each on an ARM processor. They are connected over internal 1GBps network. I have a serial port device node attached to processor A (Lets say Linux-A running on it). I have a program running on processor B (Lets say on Linux-B) access the serial port device as if it is attached to Linux-B locally.
My program invokes term i/o type api calls on device node to control tty echo, character mode input. What I am wondering is if there is a way to create a virtual serial device that is available on Linux-B somehow talking to real serial device on Linux-A over internal network.
I am thinking something along the lines of:
Linux-B has /dev/ttyvirtual. Anything that gets written to it gets transported over network socket to Linux-A serialserver. The serial server exrcises the api calls on real device lets say /dev/ttys0.
Any data waiting on ttys0 gets transported back to /dev/ttyvirtual.
What are all the things involved to get this done fast?
Thanks
Videoguy
Update:
I found a discussion at
http://fixunix.com/bsd/261068-network-socket-serial-port-question.html with great pointers.
Another useful link is http://blog.philippklaus.de/2011/08/make-rs232-serial-devices-accessible-via-ethernet/
Take a look at openpty(3). This lets you create a pseudo-TTY (like /dev/pts/0, the sort that ssh connections use), which will respond as a normal TTY would, but give you direct programmatic control over the connections.
This way you can host a serial device (eg. /dev/pts/5) that you forward data between a network connection, and then other apps can perform serial operations on it without knowing about the underlying network bridge.
I ended up using socat
Examples can be found here: socat examples
You socat back to back on both the machines. One listens on a tcp port and forwards data to local virtual port or pty. The socat on other box uses real device as input and forwards any data to tcp port.
If an incoming packet comes in AND is locally processed, is there a way to get
notified of that event?
I'm currently using the NF_IP_LOCAL_IN hook. But it looks like this gives all packets destined for the interface. For example suppose tcp packet X comes to port 5000, and there is a socket listening on port 5000. I would like to receive that event.
To clarify, I mean I only want to receive packet X events. All other packets that are not processed locally, (i.e. those that generate ICMP destination unreachable I don't want to be notified about)
Netfilter lives at L3/L4, so it only has access to information up to L4. OTOH, LSMs (Linux Security Modules) have hooks almost everywhere, including socket_recvmsg, which I think should be called only for the packets that you are interested in.
Now, whether you can use this depends on your situation. Is there a LSM already running on your environment? If the answer is yes, can you make and insert a policy for your LSM that would be enough for your purposes?
Well, the interface must be lo.
Or I don't understand why LOCAL_IN hook doesn't satisfy you.