I have a black-box device with a modem attached (which I can send commands to), and would like to be able to connect to send data to a server from it. What connectivity options do I have, is PPP the protocol I need to use or is there a better option?
ppp is certainly the most common solution for getting an IP connection over a modem. There are other solutions, but there's no reason not to use PPP if what you need is an IP connection.
If you don't need an IP connection and you're writing both the client and the server, you could also do a straight serial connection from one modem to another, but that's kind of old-school.
PPP is probably your best option, if you also want an IP gateway and routing. If you only need terminal access to the device, and it runs some form of *nix, you probably have getty+serial communication as an option. You can use any number of modem terminal clients on the other side.
Related
I’m using the python socket module on a Mac.
How do I connect two computers using the same router? I need a TCP socket with fast data passing between.
When I tried just hooking two computers up by their private ip address, then I got a Connection Refused error. How do I do this?
You can check first whether connection is allowed between two devices by going to one device and running telnet.
telnet <Private-IP-of-Second-Device> <Port>
If this shows connected then connectivity is good and issue exists with the socket module you have written.
If this fails you can try checking the firewall by going to System Preferences > Security & Privacy > Firewall.
I'm working on a custom yocto Linux for a Raspberry PI 3 and try to get the WIFI connection working with SSH. However when trying to connect from my PC (Ubuntu 19.10, SSH OpenSSH_8.0p1 Ubuntu-6build1, OpenSSL 1.1.1c 28 May 2019) to the PI on which Dropbear v2019.78 runs, the connection attempt times out. But only when I try this via SSH, and via wlan0. Other TCP/IP traffic works, and also using the same participants but with eth0. As this is for a robot, I would prefer to not use a tether though...
To try & debug this, I
enabled a serial console so I can work on the PI
disabled eth0
started a tcpdump on the PI (ip.host == 192.168.0.105)
started a tcpdump on the PC (ip.host == 192.168.0.106)
used a dirt-simple TCP/IP socket example written in Python (taken from https://realpython.com/python-sockets/#echo-server) to verify I can in fact communicate. The transmission is successful. I am aware that the example is lacking (no proper protocol etc), but that's not the point of it. It just works enough. The PI runs the server listening on port 2222.
attempted a SSH connection, it timed out.
I filtered the resulting PCAP down to contain just TCP, as there is other information (e.g. Dropbox discovery) that I don't think matters and might potentially be information leaking. On the host side (enp4s0-tcp-and-pi.pcap) I also filtered with ip.host == 192.168.0.105 to only contain any traffic to the PI.
Another note on my setup here: I use a TP-Link router which LAN ports the PC is connected to, and who provides the 2.4GHz WIFI for the PI. So both are part of the same subnet, and no special routing or anything is configured.
Also I stopped the dropbear daemon and adapted my Python code to use port 22. It works.
I'm only broadly aware of the inner workings of TCP, so I can't really make much sense of the things I see here. Any insights are more than welcome.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5o4rqr5zdws2wq7/wlan0-tcp-only.pcap?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/amypjtk1nvja4qb/enp4s0-tcp-and-pi.pcap?dl=0
I'm very unfamiliar with Linux so forgive me if this has been answered before, I've read quite a few answers but I'm never sure if they actually relate to my question.
I have a headless raspberry pi that connects to my phone's bluetooth automatically, my phone shares its internet access by tethering. I use this initial and reliable connection to SSH to my raspberry pi, and use the desktop with VNC viewer.
I would like to connect to a WiFi network that uses a captive portal, but the browser always uses the bluetooth connection so it never redirects me to the portal page. The bluetooth connection is just to be able to use the desktop so I can get through the portal, then I would like to either disconnect bluetooth or just not use it, mainly because of the low bandwidth it provides.
I've added wlan0 as a priority interface with ifmetric, but that hasn't worked.
I was thinking that forcing all HTTP connections through the wlan0 interface could solve the problem, but there may be a simpler way, feel free to tell me.
Can you explain in "simple" terms the best way to achieve this ?
Of course, there are multiple solutions. The simplest is making sure that there is only one correct default route.
There are 3 situations:
You are only connected via bluetooth via ssh
You are connected via bluetooth and via wifi, but not yet through the splash
You are through the splash
Each will require a different network configuration.
In 1, your network config will probably be:
some IP address (let's call it IP-bt) and network mask
Default gateway is your phone
With route -n you can verify this.
In 2, the network config will depend a bit on the wifi network, but in general, your network config will be:
you'll still have IP-bt
you will have a new address on the wifi adapter (which we call IP-wifi)
the default gateway should be the gateway on the wifi network.
When you verify this with route -n, you might still see a route with destination 0.0.0.0 towards your phone. You can delete this route. Your phone should be on a directly connected network and your ssh session should therefore not break.
If the default gw is not on the wifi network, you can still remove the route that sets your phone as default gw.
Under 3, the default gw must be on the wifi network, and not on the phone. You will still be able to use your phone, because it is directly connected.
Something to watch out for in this scenario is that your phone will act as a DHCP server. That means once in a while your DHCP lease will refresh, and the bluetooth default route may re-appear. Disconnecting bluetooth will prevent this.
The second solution is to use ifmetric. Instead of making wlan0 a lower metric, make your bluetooth a higher metric. Again verify with route -n that the metrics are as you want them to be. Verify with a traceroute how the packets are moving.
A third, and most complex option would be to install Quagga and configure correct routing.
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'm writing a piece of P2P software, which requires a direct connection to the Internet. It is decentralized, so there is no always-on server that it can contact with a request for the server to attempt to connect back to it in order to observe if the connection attempt arrives.
Is there a way to test the connection for firewall status?
I'm thinking in my dream land where wishes were horses, there would be some sort of 3rd-party, public, already existent servers to whom I could send some sort of simple command, and they would send a special ping back. Then I could simply listen to see if that arrives and know whether I'm behind a firewall.
Even if such a thing does not exist, are there any alternative routes available?
Nantucket - does your service listen on UDP or TCP?
For UDP - what you are sort of describing is something the STUN protocol was designed for. It matches your definition of "some sort of simple command, and they would send a special ping back"
STUN is a very "ping like" (UDP) protocol for a server to echo back to a client what IP and port it sees the client as. The client can then use the response from the server and compare the result with what it thinks its locally enumerated IP address is. If the server's response matches the locally enumerated IP address, the client host can self determinte that it is directly connected to the Internet. Otherwise, the client must assume it is behind a NAT - but for the majority of routers, you have just created a port mapping that can be used for other P2P connection scenarios.
Further, you can you use the RESPONSE-PORT attribute in the STUN binding request for the server to respond back to a different port. This will effectively allow you to detect if you are firewalled or not.
TCP - this gets a little tricky. STUN can partially be used to determine if you are behind a NAT. Or simply making an http request to whatismyip.com and parsing the result to see if there's a NAT. But it gets tricky, as there's no service on the internet that I know of that will test a TCP connection back to you.
With all the above in mind, the vast majority of broadband users are likely behind a NAT that also acts as a firewall. Either given by their ISP or their own wireless router device. And even if they are not, most operating systems have some sort of minimal firewall to block unsolicited traffic. So it's very limiting to have a P2P client out there than can only work on direct connections.
With that said, on Windows (and likely others), you can program your app's install package can register with the Windows firewall so your it is not blocked. But if you aren't targeting Windows, you may have to ask the user to manually fix his firewall software.
Oh shameless plug. You can use this open source STUN server and client library which supports all of the semantics described above. Follow up with me offline if you need access to a stun service.
You might find this article useful
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364726%28v=VS.85%29.aspx
I would start with each os and ask if firewall services are turned on. Secondly, I would attempt the socket connections and determine from the error codes if connections are being reset or timeout. I'm only familiar with winsock coding, so I can't really say much for Linux or mac os.