We Keep Coding

Unable to receive known reply when broadcasting UDP datagrams over LAN using Sockets or UdpClient

I have searched for 2 days and found many, many questions/answers to what appears to be this same issue, with some differences, however none really seem to provide a solution.
I am implementing a library for controlling a DMX system (ColorKinetics devices) directly without an OEM controller. This involves communicating with an Ethernet-enabled power supply (PDS) connected to my home LAN, through a router, which drives the lighting fixtures. The PDS operates on a specific port (6038) and responds to properly formatted datagrams broadcast over the network.
I can successfully broadcast a simple DMX message (Header + DMX data), which gets picked up by the PDS and applied to connected lighting fixtures, so one-way communication is not an issue.
My issue is that I am now trying to implement a device discovery function to detect the PDS(s) and attached lights on the LAN, and I am not able to receive datagrams which are (absolutely) being sent back from the PDS. I can successfully transmit a datagram which instructs the devices to reply, and I can see the reply coming back in WireShark, but my application does not detect the reply.
I also tried running a simple listener app on another machine, which could detect the initial broadcast, but could not hear the return datagram either, however I figure this wouldn't work since the return packet is addressed to the original sender IP address.
I initially tried implementing via UdpClient, then via Sockets, and both produce the same result no matter what options and parameters I seem to specify.
Here is my current, very simple code to test functionality, currently using Sockets.
byte[] datagram = new CkPacket_DiscoverPDSRequestHeader().ToPacket();
Socket sender = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Dgram, ProtocolType.Udp);
IPEndPoint ep = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Parse("192.168.1.149"), 6039);
public Start()
{
// Start listener
new Thread(() =>
{
Receive();
}).Start();
sender.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.Socket, SocketOptionName.ReuseAddress, true);
sender.EnableBroadcast = true;
// Bind the sender to known local IP and port 6039
sender.Bind(ep);
}
public void Send()
{
// Broadcast the datagram to port 6038
sender.SendTo(datagram, new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Broadcast, 6038));
}
public void Receive()
{
Socket receiver = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Dgram, ProtocolType.Udp);
receiver.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.Socket, SocketOptionName.ReuseAddress, true);
receiver.EnableBroadcast = true;
// Bind the receiver to known local IP and port 6039 (same as sender)
IPEndPoint EndPt = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Parse("192.168.1.149"),6039);
receiver.Bind(EndPt);
// Listen
while (true)
{
byte[] receivedData = new byte[256];
// Get the data
int rec = receiver.Receive(receivedData);
// Write to console the number of bytes received
Console.WriteLine($"Received {rec} bytes");
}
}
The sender and receiver are bound to an IPEndPoint with the local IP and port 6039. I did this because I could see that each time I initialized a new UdpClient, the system would dynamically assign an outgoing port, which the PDS would send data back to. Doing it this way, I can say that the listener is definitely listening on the port which should receive the PDS response (6039). I believe that since I have the option ReuseAddress set to true, this shouldn't be a problem (no exceptions thrown).
Start() creates a new thread to contain the listener, and initializes options on the sending client.
Send() successfully broadcasts the 16-byte datagram which is received by the PDS on port 6038, and generates a reply to port 6039 (Seen in WireShark)
Receive() does not receive the datagram. If I bind the listener to port 6038, it will receive the original 16-byte datagram broadcast.
Here is the WireShark data:
Wireshark
I have looked at using a library like SharpPCap, as many answers have suggested, but there appear to be some compatibility issues in the latest release that I am not smart enough to circumvent, which prevent the basic examples from functioning properly on my system. It also seems like this sort of basic functionality shouldn't require that type of external dependency. I've also seen many other questions/answers where the issue was similar, but it was solved by setting this-or-that parameter for the Socket or UdpClient, of which I have tried every combination to no avail.
I have also enabled access permissions through windows firewall, allowed port usage, and even completely disabled the firewall, to no success. I don't believe the issue would be with my router, since messages are getting to Wireshark.
UPDATE 1
Per suggestions, I believe I put the listener Socket in promiscuous mode as follows:
Socket receiver = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Raw, ProtocolType.IP);
receiver.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.IP, SocketOptionName.HeaderIncluded, true);
receiver.EnableBroadcast = true;
IPEndPoint EndPt = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Parse("192.168.1.149"), 0);
receiver.Bind(EndPt);
receiver.IOControl(IOControlCode.ReceiveAll, new byte[] { 1, 0, 0, 0 }, null);
This resulted in the listener receiving all sorts of network traffic, including the outbound requests, but still no incoming reply.
UPDATE 2
As Viet suggested, there is some sort of addressing problem in the request datagram, which is formatted as such:
public class CkPacket_DiscoverPDSRequest : BytePacket
{
public uint magic = 0x0401dc4a;
public ushort version = 0x0100;
public ushort type = 0x0100;
public uint sequence = 0x00000000;
public uint command = 0xffffffff;
}
If I change the command field to my broadcast address 192.168.1.149' or192.168.255.255`, my listener begins detecting the return packets. I admittedly do not know what this field is supposed to represent, and my original guess was to just put in a broadcast address since the point of the datagram is to discover all devices on the network. This is obviously not the case, though I am still not sure the exact point of it.
Either way, thank you for the help, this is progress.

So in actuality it turns out that my issue was with the formatting of the outgoing datagram. The command field needs to be an address on the local subnet 192.168.xxx.xxx, and not 255.255.255.255... for whatever reason this was causing the packet to be filtered somewhere before getting to my application, though WireShark could still see it. This may be common sense in this type of work but being relatively ignorant as to network programming as well as the specifics of this interface it wasn't something I had considered.
Making the change allows a simple UdpClient send/receive to function perfectly.
Much thanks to Viet Hoang for helping me find this!

As you've already noted, you don't need to bind to send out a broadcast but it uses a random source port.
If you adjust your code to not bind the sender, your listener should behave as expected again:
Socket sender = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Dgram, ProtocolType.Udp);
sender.EnableBroadcast = true;
Thread read_thread;
public Start()
{
// Start listener
read_thread = new Thread(Receive);
read_thread.Start();
}
The issue you've bumped into is that the operating system kernel is only delivering packets up to one socket binder (first come first serve basis).
If you want true parallel read access, you'll need to look into sniffing example such as: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12437794/8408335.
Since you are only looking to source the broadcast from the same ip/port, you simply need to let the receiver bind first.
If you add in a short sleep after kicking off the receive thread, and before binding the sender, you will be able to see the expected results.
public Start()
{
// Start listener
new Thread(() =>
{
Receive();
}).Start();
Thread.Sleep(100);
sender.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.Socket, SocketOptionName.ReuseAddress, true);
sender.EnableBroadcast = true;
// Bind the sender to known local IP and port 6039
sender.Bind(ep);
}
Extra note: You can quickly test your udp sockets from a linux box using netcat:
# echo "hello" | nc -q -1 -u 192.168.1.149 6039 -
- Edit -
Problem Part #2
The source address of "255.255.255.255" is invalid.
Did a quick test with two identical packets altering the source ip:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/BvWIa.jpg
Only the one with the valid source IP was printed to the console.
Received 26 bytes
Received 26 bytes

TCPClient is not closed, and instead waits for a client to close it

i have few questions about programming a TcpListener.
First problem:
Once client is connected using browser, i see the request. it is all ok. but then i face the problem with writing. and client recieving that data. it basically never gets a reply from server. do i need that flush function ? how does it work ? and is there any others ways of doing it ?
Porblem number 2 which is even more weird. when i call client.close() client doesnt go anywhere. it is still there. browser is stillw ating for data. and when i kill connection in the browser, only then Tcp client gets closed and loop starts again.
namespace TestServer
{
class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
TcpListener server;
IPAddress addr = IPAddress.Parse("127.0.0.1");
server = new TcpListener(addr, 80);
server.Start();
byte[] buffer = new byte[1024];
while(true)
{
string data = null;
Console.WriteLine("Awaiting for connections");
TcpClient client = server.AcceptTcpClient();
Console.WriteLine("Connected...");
NetworkStream str = client.GetStream();
int msgCounter;
while ((msgCounter = str.Read(buffer, 0, buffer.Length)) != 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("Processing stream...");
data += System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetString(buffer, 0, msgCounter);
Console.WriteLine("Reciaved: {0}", System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetString(buffer, 0, msgCounter));
}
byte[] response = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes("200 OK");
str.Write(response, 0, response.Length);
str.Flush();
client.Close();
buffer = new byte[1024];
}
}
}
}

TCP as a bi-directional transport layer protocol does not denote any concept of the "client is done sending request" signal.
What it means for developers is that such signaling must be defined in the application (or any other higher level) protocol layer.
In your case it is declared by HTTP itself in the https://tools.ietf.org/html//rfc2616#section-5
So if you intend to implement an HTTP server you must parse the HTTP request that has a determined way to identify the end of the request (see the link above).
To summarise: you need to know somehow you've read the request entirely and you may start processing it and generating/sending the response.

I'd recommend you to start with a million times proven working MSDN example of TcpListener class. Additionally I can point to explicit wrong approach:
Do not recreate buffer, it is a waste of resources.
Do not use browser as a test client if you are working with TCP sockets. Any browser tries to correct somehow HTTP protocol errors and can do it in very unpredictable way. If you need HTTP level of debugging, use Fiddler, for lower levels - Microsoft Network Monitor, Wireshark of Netcat.
It could be useful to read some book about TCP/IP networking. Particularly, you will know, that there is not "close" operation or command for TCP connection by protocol definition, TcpClient just emulate it. Instead a peer can send "shutdown" to another one, it does mean it doesn't plan to send data anymore, but can read it. Connection can be considered as closed only after both peers have sent their "shutdown" and received "shutdown" from each other.

Weird tcp connection scenario

I am using TCP as a mechanism for keep alive here is my code:
Client
TcpClient keepAliveTcpClient = new TcpClient();
keepAliveTcpClient.Connect(HostId, tcpPort);
//this 'read' is supposed to blocked till a legal disconnect is requested
//or till the server unexpectedly dissapears
int numberOfByptes = keepAliveTcpClient.GetStream().Read(new byte[10], 0, 10);
//more client code...
Server
TcpListener _tcpListener = new TcpListener(IPAddress.Any, 1000);
_tcpListener.Start();
_tcpClient = _tcpListener.AcceptTcpClient();
Tracer.Write(Tracer.TraceLevel.INFO, "get a client");
buffer = new byte[10];
numOfBytes = _tcpClient.GetStream().Read(buffer, 0, buffer.Length);
if(numOfBytes==0)
{
//shouldn't reach here unless the connection is close...
}
I put only the relevant code... Now what that happens is that the client code is block on read as expected, but the server read return immediately with numOfBytes equals to 0, even if I retry to do read on the server it return immediately... but the client read is still block! so in the server side I think mistakenly that the client is disconnected from the server but the client thinks it connected to the server... someone can tell how it is possible? or what is wrong with my mechanism?
Edit: After a failure I wrote to the log these properties:
_tcpClient: _tcpClient.Connected=true
Socket: (_tcpClient.Client properties)
_tcpClient.Client.Available=0
_tcpClient.Client.Blocking=true
_tcpClient.Client.Connected=true
_tcpClient.Client.IsBound=true
Stream details
_tcpClient.GetStream().DataAvailable=false;

Even when correctly implemented, this approach will only detect some remote server failures. Consider the case where the intervening network partitions the two machines. Then, only when the underlying TCP stack sends a transport level keep-alive will the system detect the failure. Keepalive is a good description of the problem. [Does a TCP socket connection have a “keep alive”?] 2 is a companion question. The RFC indicates the functionality is optional.
The only certain way to reliably confirm that the other party is still alive is to occasionally send actual data between the two endpoints. This will result in TCP promptly detecting the failure and reporting it back to the application.

Maybe something that will give clue: it happens only when 10 or more clients
connect the server the same time(the server listen to 10 or more ports).
If you're writing this code on Windows 7/8, you may be running into a connection limit issue. Microsoft's license allows 20 concurrent connections, but the wording is very specific:
[Start->Run->winver, click "Microsoft Software License Terms"]
3e. Device Connections. You may allow up to 20 other devices to access software installed on the licensed computer to use only File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services and Internet Connection Sharing and Telephony Services.
Since what you're doing isn't file, print, IIS, ICS, or telephony, it's possible that the previous connection limit of 10 from XP/Vista is still enforced in these circumstances. Set a limit of concurrent connections to 9 in your code temporarily, and see if it keeps happening.

The way I am interpretting the MSDN remarks it seems that behavior is expected. If you have no data the Read the method returns.
With that in mind I think what I would try is to send data at a specified interval like some of the previous suggestions along with a "timeout" of some sort. If you don't see the "ping" within your designated interval you could fail the keepalive. With TCP you have to keep in mind that there is no requirement to deem a connection "broken" just because you aren't seeing data. You could completely unplug the network cables and the connection will still be considered good up until the point that you send some data. Once you send data you'll see one of 2 behaviors. Either you'll never see a response (listening machine was shutdown?) or you'll get an "ack-reset" (listening machine is no longer listening on that particular socket)
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/system.net.sockets.networkstream.read(v=vs.100).aspx
Remarks:
This method reads data into the buffer parameter and returns the number of bytes successfully read. If no data is available for reading, the Read method returns 0. The Read operation reads as much data as is available, up to the number of bytes specified by the size parameter. If the remote host shuts down the connection, and all available data has been received, the Read method completes immediately and return zero bytes.

As I can see you are reading data on both sides, server and client. You need to write some data from the server to the client, to ensure that your client will have something to read. You can find a small test program below (The Task stuff is just to run the Server and Client in the same program).
class Program
{
private static Task _tcpServerTask;
private const int ServerPort = 1000;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StartTcpServer();
KeepAlive();
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void StartTcpServer()
{
_tcpServerTask = new Task(() =>
{
var tcpListener = new TcpListener(IPAddress.Any, ServerPort);
tcpListener.Start();
var tcpClient = tcpListener.AcceptTcpClient();
Console.WriteLine("Server got client ...");
using (var stream = tcpClient.GetStream())
{
const string message = "Stay alive!!!";
var arrayMessage = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(message);
stream.Write(arrayMessage, 0, arrayMessage.Length);
}
tcpListener.Stop();
});
_tcpServerTask.Start();
}
private static void KeepAlive()
{
var tcpClient = new TcpClient();
tcpClient.Connect("127.0.0.1", ServerPort);
using (var stream = tcpClient.GetStream())
{
var buffer = new byte[16];
while (stream.Read(buffer, 0, buffer.Length) != 0)
Console.WriteLine("Client received: {0} ", Encoding.UTF8.GetString(buffer));
}
}
}

How to check if data is being sent to a Port with C# UdpClient

I have a program whereby Data is being sent from one computer to another via UDP. The problem is that data may not always be sent by the sending program and I want my receiving program's receive functionality to be enabled ONLY when something is being sent to a specified port (5000 in this case), otherwise when the user tries to receive data on the port using UdpClient the program crashes. For example:
private const int listenPort = 5000;//receiving port
UdpClient listener = new UdpClient(listenPort);//udclient instance
IPEndPoint groupEP = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, listenPort);
public string received_data;
public byte[] receive_byte_array;
private void receiveButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
receive_byte_array = listener.Receive(ref groupEP);
received_data = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(receive_byte_array, 0, receive_byte_array.Length);
textBox1.Text = received_data.ToString();
}
My problem here is when there is no data being sent and the User clicks receiveButton on the main window my whole program crashes. To be specific the problem is here:
receive_byte_array = listener.Receive(ref groupEP);
I've tried to fix the problem by putting the above line of code in a try catch statement but even then the program crashes! It seems merely trying to receive data on the IPEndpoint port when there is none raises hell.
Any ideas as to how I can first check if data is being sent to the port and only then allow the user to receive data? Thanks in advance.

based on your comment I'd say the program is freezing because it is waiting for data to receive. your user interface freezes because you've started listening for data synchronously from the UI thread and it is now preoccupied with listening for data and not repainting or processing input. to fix this put the listening bit in a separate thread or use the async BeginReceive method to receive the data.

How can I unbind a socket in C#?

I'm having some problems reusing a server socket in a test application I've made. Basically, I have a program that implements both the client side and the server side. I run two instances of this program for testing purposes, one instance starts to host and the other connects. This is the listening code:
private void Listen_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
server = new ConnectionWrapper();
HideControls();
alreadyReset = false;
int port = int.Parse(PortHostEdit.Text);
IPEndPoint iep = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, port);
server.connection.Bind(iep); // bellow explanations refer to this line in particular
server.connection.Listen(1);
server.connection.BeginAccept(new AsyncCallback(OnClientConnected), null);
GameStatus.Text = "Waiting for connections on port " + port.ToString();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
DispatchError(ex);
}
}
private void OnClientConnected(IAsyncResult iar)
{
try
{
me = Player.XPlayer;
myTurn = true;
server.connection = server.connection.EndAccept(iar); // I will only have one client, so I don't care for the original listening socket.
GameStatus.Text = server.connection.RemoteEndPoint.ToString() + " connected";
StartServerReceive();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
DispatchError(ex);
}
}
This works fine the first time. However, after a while (when my little game ends), I call Dispose() on the server object, implemented like this:
public void Dispose()
{
connection.Close(); // connection is the actual socket
commandBuff.Clear(); // this is just a StringBuilder
}
I also have this in the object constructor:
public ConnectionWrapper()
{
commandBuff = new StringBuilder();
connection = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);
connection.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.Socket, SocketOptionName.ReuseAddress, true);
}
I get no error when I click the Listen button a second time. The client side connects just fine, however my server side does not detect the client connection a second time, which basically renders the server useless anyway. I'm guessing it's connecting to the old, lingering socket, but I have no idea why this is happening to be honest. Here's the client connection code:
private void Connect_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
client = new ConnectionWrapper();
HideControls();
alreadyReset = false;
IPAddress ip = IPAddress.Parse(IPEdit.Text);
int port = int.Parse(PortConnEdit.Text);
IPEndPoint ipe = new IPEndPoint(ip, port);
client.connection.BeginConnect(ipe, new AsyncCallback(OnConnectedToServer), null);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
DispatchError(ex);
}
}
If I do netstat -a in CMD, I see that the port I use is still bound and its state is LISTENING, even after calling Dispose(). I read that this is normal, and that there's a timeout for that port to be "unbound".
Is there a way I can force that port to unbind or set a very short timeout until it automatically gets unbound? Right now, it only gets unbound when I exit the program. Maybe I'm doing something wrong in my server? If so, what could that be? Why does the client connect fine, yet the server side doesn't detect it a second time?
I could make the socket always listen, not dispose it, and use a separate socket to handle the server connection, which would probably fix it, but I want other programs to be able to use the port between successive play sessions.
I remember seeing another question asking this, but there was no satisfactory answer for my case there.

There may be a couple of reasons why the port would stay open, but I think you should be able to resolve your issue by using an explicit LingerOption on the socket:
LingerOption lo = new LingerOption(false, 0);
socket.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.Socket, SocketOptionName.Linger, lo);
This basically turns the socket shutdown into an abortive shutdown instead of a graceful shutdown. If you want it to be graceful but just not wait as long, then use true in the constructor and specify a small but nonzero value for the timeout.
I just noticed this line, which is almost undoubtedly part of your problem:
server.connection = server.connection.EndAccept(iar); // I will only have one client, so I don't care for the original listening socket.
The comment you've written here is, well, wrong. Your wrapper class really shouldn't allow connection to be written to at all. But you cannot simply replace the listening socket with the client socket - they're two different sockets!
What's going to happen here is that (a) the listening socket goes out of scope and therefore never gets explicitly closed/disposed - this will happen at a random time, possibly at a nasty time. And (b) the socket that you do close is just the client socket, it will not close the listening socket, and so it's no wonder that you're having trouble rebinding another listening socket.
What you're actually witnessing isn't a socket timeout, it's the time it takes for the garbage collector to realize that the listening socket is dead and free/finalize it. To fix this, you need to stop overwriting the listening socket; the Dispose method of your wrapper class should dispose the original listening socket, and the client socket should be tracked separately and disposed whenever you are actually done with it.
In fact, you should really never need to rebind another listening socket at all. The listening socket stays alive the whole time. The actual connection is represented by just the client socket. You should only need to dispose the listening socket when you finally shut down the server.

I agree with the previous answer, you should also "shutdown" to allow any existing activity to complete and then close the socket flagging it for reuse...
socket.Shutdown(SocketShutdown.Both);
socket.Disconnect(true);