For UDP (Multicasts), multiple applications can subscribe to the same port.
If one packet has arrived from client, which application receive it?
Nowadays, mDNS discovery is very popular in LAN D2D use cases. Different applications may bundle different mDNS discovery modules, which leads to the fact that multiple applications listen to the same port. When one packet comes, which application receive it? Or all get notified?
Related
I can deliver normal UDP messages between two computers using a direct ethernet connection using my software. But I couldn't do the same for multicasting messages, I've tried other softwares that can send and receive multicast UDP messages and they didn't work as well. So I thought and wanted to ask if a direct Ethernet connection is a proper pyhsical setup or not. And if not what should I do?
Yes, a direct ethernet supports multicast. As opposed to an NBMA network like frame relay (rare these days) which does not support multicast for example.
Make sure you are not actually using a switch (which is a bridge) that has IGMP snooping enabled. IGMP snooping will not propagate multicast to nodes that have not sent an IGMP join (assuming your software does not do the join).
Consider a simple IPv6 multicast application:
A "talker" program periodically sends out IPv6 UDP packets to a well-known multicast-group, sending them to a well-known port.
Zero or more "listener" programs bind themselves to that well-known port and join the well-known multicast group, and they all receive the UDP packets.
That all works pretty well, except in the case where one or more of the listener-programs is unable to bind to the well-known UDP port because a socket in some other (unrelated) program has already bound to that UDP port (and didn't set the SO_REUSEADDR and/or SO_REUSEPORT options to allow it to be shared with anyone else). AFAICT in that case, the listener program is simply out of luck, there is nothing it can do to receive the multicast data, short of asking the user to terminate the interfering program in order to free up the port.
Or is there? For example, is there some technique or approach that would allow a multicast listener to receive all the incoming multicast packets for a given multicast-group, regardless of which UDP port they are being sent to?
If you want to receive all multicast traffic regardless of port, you'd need to use raw sockets to get the complete IP datagram. You could then directly inspect the IP header, check if it's using UDP, then check the UDP header before reading the application layer data. Note that methods of doing this are OS specific and typically require administrative privileges.
Regarding SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT, apps that do this will allow multiple programs to receive multicast packets sent to a given port. However, if you also need to receive unicast packets this method has issues. Incoming unicast packets may be set to both sockets, may always be sent to one specific socket, or sent to each in an alternating fashion. This also differs based on the OS.
I'm having some confusion if a VOIP App can have multiple tcp sockets monitored in background via kCFStreamNetworkServiceTypeVoIP option. Apple documentation says mark one of the sockets but doesn't say that multiple sockets can't be used.
My sample code with 2 tcp sockets seems to be working fine in background but wanted to confirm that it is not just some fluke and actually supported by iOS.
It does work, you can mark any (and as many) VOIP TCP sockets as you like. The 'use case' here would be if you have a VOIP client registering against multiple servers, each of those sockets would require a separate TCP socket, and thus have the VOIP property assigned.
I think the docs are actually referencing that you only need to set ONE socket per service you're registered against (as opposed to one per app).
I'm almost completely done with and iOS client for my REST service. The only thing I'm missing is the ability for the client to listen on the network for a UDP broadcast that receives the host display name and base URL for uploads. There could be multiple servers on the network broadcasting and waiting for uploads.
Asynchronous is preferred. The servers will be displayed to the user as the device discovers them and I want the user to be able to select a server at any point in time.
The broadcaster is sending to 255.255.255.255 and does not expect any data back.
I am a beginner in objective c so something simple and easy to use is best.
I recommend looking at CocoaAsyncSocket. It can handle UDP sockets well. I haven't tried listening to a broadcast with it, but it's probably your best bet.
I'm trying to get some feedback on the recommendations for a service 'roster' in my specific application. I have a server app that maintains persistant socket connections with clients. I want to further develop the server to support distributed instances. Server "A" would need to be able to broadcast data to the other online server instances. Same goes for all other active instances.
Options I am trying to research:
Redis / Zookeeper / Doozer - Each server instance would register itself to the configuration server, and all connected servers would receive configuration updates as it changes. What then?
Maintain end-to-end connections with each server instance and iterate over the list with each outgoing data?
Some custom UDP multicast, but I would need to roll my own added reliability on top of it.
Custom message broker - A service that runs and maintains a registry as each server connects and informs it. Maintains a connection with each server to accept data and re-broadcast it to the other servers.
Some reliable UDP multicast transport where each server instance just broadcasts directly and no roster is maintained.
Here are my concerns:
I would love to avoid relying on external apps, like zookeeper or doozer but I would use them obviously if its the best solution
With a custom message broker, I wouldnt want it to become a bottleneck is throughput. Which would mean I might have to also be able to run multiple message brokers and use a load balancer when scaling?
multicast doesnt require any external processes if I manage to roll my own, but otherwise I would need to maybe use ZMQ, which again puts me in the situation of depends.
I realize that I am also talking about message delivery, but it goes hand in hand with the solution I go with.
By the way, my server is written in Go. Any ideas on a best recommended way to maintain scalability?
* EDIT of goal *
What I am really asking is what is the best way to implement broadcasting data between instances of a distributed server given the following:
Each server instance maintains persistent TCP socket connections with its remote clients and passes messages between them.
Messages need to be able to be broadcasted to the other running instances so they can be delivered to relavant client connections.
Low latency is important because the messaging can be high speed.
Sequence and reliability is important.
* Updated Question Summary *
If you have multiple servers / multiple end points that need to pub/sub between each other, what is a recommended mode of communication between them? One or more message brokers to re-pub messages to a roster of the discovered servers? Reliable multicast directly from each server?
How do you connect multiple end points in a distributed system while keeping latency low, speed high, and delivery reliable?
Assuming all of your client-facing endpoints are on the same LAN (which they can be for the first reasonable step in scaling), reliable UDP multicast would allow you to send published messages directly from the publishing endpoint to any of the endpoints who have clients subscribed to the channel. This also satisfies the low-latency requirement much better than proxying data through a persistent storage layer.
Multicast groups
A central database (say, Redis) could track a map of multicast groups (IP:PORT) <--> channels.
When an endpoint receives a new client with a new channel to subscribe, it can ask the database for the channel's multicast address and join the multicast group.
Reliable UDP multicast
When an endpoint receives a published message for a channel, it sends the message to that channel's multicast socket.
Message packets will contain ordered identifiers per server per multicast group. If an endpoint receives a message without receiving the previous message from a server, it will send a "not acknowledged" message for any messages it missed back to the publishing server.
The publishing server tracks a list of recent messages, and resends NAK'd messages.
To handle the edge case of a server sending only one message and having it fail to reach a server, server can send a packet count to the multicast group over the lifetime of their NAK queue: "I've sent 24 messages", giving other servers a chance to NAK previous messages.
You might want to just implement PGM.
Persistent storage
If you do end up storing data long-term, storage services can join the multicast groups just like endpoints... but store the messages in a database instead of sending them to clients.