Sending sms directed to port 5001, but few phones like nokia E series are receiving these smses at default port. All phone's default port is 0 then how these phones are receiving these smses.
If I recall correctly, on most (all?) Symbian devices, if an SMS is received on a port AND its character set is human-readable (i.e. its not a binary SMS, but is UCS2 or 7-bit text) AND there is no on-device client listening on that port, then it is inserted into the Inbox.
I think you will find that if you have a client on port 5001 which receives these messages, they won't end up in the Inbox.
Related
I'm new to internet-based / network programming, and this is my first time using packets in any language.
I want to create a console application that lets people connect to a chat room and talk to people. For the moment, I just want to send a receive a packet.
I am using TcpListener to recieve and TcpClient to send. I want it to be simple for people using it and don't want them to have to port forward in order to use it.
Can I send TCP without port forwarding or will I have to use something else?
Thanks in advance.
I have developed an application to send message via TCP client and Listener. I am using a ComboBox and ping system to test which PC is online in the network.
How can I restrict the list to only those PCs on which my messenger application is running?
I am assuming it is running on a local network...
You should build in message "types" into your app. You can then send out a broadcast "is anyone there?" message. You do this using the broadcast IP subnet address x.x.x.255.
All PCs running your app should interpret the "is anyone there?" message and respond with a "I am here" message type. Collect them and populate your combo box.
I am trying to send a UDP packet to a device that is behind a NAT. Using a 3rd party program it is possible to send packets to this device no problem, and the packets show up in wireshark fine.
Using my own UDP client to send a packet to the device doesn't work... but if the device sends ME a packet, in the onReceive() method, sending directly back to the device in this method DOES work...but interestingly if I take the EndPoint and connect to this using a new UDP client, then it doesn't work again.
It seems like only when the device connects to me can I send messages downstream (like reverse connecting in TCP) and even taking the EndPoint as a reference to the 'connection' is not enough.
Can anyone think of reasons why I can't send directly to the device, even though I know it is possible to do so because the 3rd party software can do it?
Sending directly to other IP's such as my local computer works fine too, it is just this device that I cannot contact. My local computer is on an address like 192.168.10.2 and the device is on an address like 12.0.1.5 (when connected it creates its own LAN)
Many thanks
I'm sniffing between two devices which communicate in a duplex fashion via udp. I'm using wireshark to sniff. The config file for the first device (a piece of hardware under test) states that the client port is 54718 and the server is 54717. In the config file for the second device (a simulator written years ago), only one port is specified. That of 54718.
The two devices communicate without any problems.
But how does the second device manage to connect and send to 54717 when it has no knowledge of it?
In wireshark I can see that the first device is sending to the second device such that the source port is 54717 and the destination is 54718. I can also see that the second device is sending to the first device such that the source port is 54718 and the destination is 54717.
The first device sends first and the protocol is described as that of UDP in Wireshark. The simulator replies, also via UDP. Subsequent exchanges are described as being STUN ChannelData TURN Messages. I've no knowledge of this protocol but maybe it explains why I don't see 54717 in the simulators config file.
Thanks for your help,
Barry
First, in UDP communication, there is no "connect" action. UDP is not connection-oriented.
Second, the second device will get the peer address and port from recvfrom() api call.
In all probability, the first device's use of the terminology "client port" and "server port" do not refer to two different ports within the client device. Instead, the "client port" refers to the port to be used as the point of origin within the first device, and the "server port" refers to the remote destination port on the far device, to which the first device's outgoing traffic will be sent.
The second device, on the other hand, is probably fundamentally a "listening" device. It only knows the UDP port it needs to listen on, and waits for any queries destined to that port to arrive from anywhere.
So, I will refer to the "first device" as the client, and the "second device" as the server.
Each datagram sent from the client to the server contains two sets of address information:
1) The destination IP address and port, and
2) The return IP address and port.
The server can use recvfrom() to extract the complete return address (including port number) from each incoming request.
This way, we really only need one port number to be predfined and agreed upon by both the server and the client ahead of time: The server's port number.
The client could conceivably choose to use any random port number as its origin port (but by convention it would likely choose to avoid any of the well-known reserved ports to avoid potential interoperability problems), and the server could dynamically read the return address information from each incoming request and send its responses to the correct destination dynamically.
But how does the second device manage to connect and send to 54717 when it has no knowledge of it?
UDP is connectionless, and your program likely gets the 54717 as a default fallback value if nothing else is specified (e.g. in a config file).
I am working on a C++ server/.NET client applications couple in which my server (which runs the c++ on linux) broadcasts a message to show it's alive to the whole network and my .NET program listens for packets and parses to get the uptime of the server.
As I have read, to send a regular UDP broadcast to the broadcast address, I simply have to send a packet to 192.168.0.255 (in my case 192.168.2.255) or 255.255.255.255. Is this right? Can I use the same port address? Are there any other necessities?
I understand the fact that if my .NET program listens on that particular address it is possible to receive packets from other applications than my C++ server program. Is there any method of "signing" the packet on the C++ server-side in order for my .NET program to read the header of the packet and see that it is (almost) the one I am looking for?
Regardless of the language you are using, here is my answer:
Regarding the broadcast IP addresses, both addresses are broadcast addresses but the limited broadcast address (which is 255.255.255.255) won't be forwarded by routers. It is better to use the subnet-directed broadcast address (192.168.2.255).
In order to send/receive a broadcast address, you need to define your broadcast address (broadcast IP address and port number). For example: 192.168.2.255 and port number 3000. The client applications (the senders) MUST enable SO_BROADCAST socket option as follows:
int enabled = 1;
setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BROADCAST, &enabled, sizeof(enabled));
where sockfd is the socket descriptor.
The server application will listen on a specific port number (port 3000). Normally, the server will respond to each request using unicast message.
There will be no conflict as long as no application is listening on the same port number. Your server will not run if another application is listening on the same port unless you enabled SO_REUSEADDRESS socket option. However, if there is a conflict, then your signiture is depending on your protocol (message format). So, check the message format and reject the message if it does not follow the message format defined by your application protocol.
For client applications, the received packet is unicast (unless you have another design). So, no conflict at this side.
You also have to enable the SO_BROADCAST socket option in C++ to send broadcast traffic, or you'll get a permission denied error:
int broadcastPermission = 1;
setsockopt(socketDescriptor, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BROADCAST, (void*)&broadcastPermission, sizeof(broadcastPermission))
If your .NET program listens for broadcast traffic, it will receive any and all broadcast traffic on the network sent on that port, including traffic not sent by your server. You could put a "marker" in the payload of the broadcast messages sent by your server. This way, your .NET program could distinguish which ones it cares about.
Beyond that, I would recommend using multicast instead of broadcast. Broadcast traffic is usually restricted to hosts on the same subnet. In layman's terms, if you have a router in your network, a host on side A of the router will not see broadcast traffic sent by a host on side B (and vice versa) because the router "blocks" it. Routers will almost always forward multicast traffic if a host has joined the multicast group.