I have an openjms-0-7-7 instance running on my cloud machine. The connection to the jms topic happens over tcp. I run the client application on my personal computer at home and I am able to send messages to the topic (which then get forwarded correctly to other listeners) but I am unable to receive messages. My PC is connected to the internet through a NAT router.
I have tried to reproduce this issue using my university network and it all worked fine (there I am assigned my own external IP address - no NAT).
Am I right thinking that the problem is my router blocking the messages? How can I check this and also, how can I fix this.
Best regards,
Bart
Your router is most probably blocking incoming JMS messages as it does not know to which local client (after NAT) it belongs.
You will have to configure port forwarding in your router. Please refer to its documentation for that. To know which ports to forward, you will have to consult openjms's documentation to see how it assigns ports to clients.
Related
[This post has been updated with a possible approach, which is added to the bottom]
I am trying to create a web socket connection between two devices((A). chrome in different computer and (B) a raspberry pi) in different networks. Thus, i can send video data over websockets. However, I cannot port forward the network of my router to expose my local IP to the network, thus, I can't send the data right away.
Figure below explains the architechture.
Thus ,I am trying to implement a logic so that Device A websockets the public ws of the cloud while, the cloud actually gets the data from Device B.So Device A websockets device B indirectly.
Device A<==>Cloud Server<==>Device B
The cloud could be something like a proxy or a relay websocket server.
The video feed needs to be sent in real time,
Please suggest how can i proceed with it.
Additional note, i have acquired an instance of digitalocean as VPS, following the blog Accessing home services from anywhere, without port forwarding! but not sure how to proceed.
Update(11th Nov,2019):
I am planning to use a websocket server on DigitalOcean instance(droplet),which would be listening to my local IP/port of my raspberry pi.And this VPS would act as a websocket server,which would redirect the traffic.
However, I am unsure how to use the same.And need your kind suggestions.
In short we have two separate servers for our web app. The first one is the main server that uses Websockets for handling "chat rooms", and the second server only handles WebRTC audio chat rooms via Websocket. Both servers use Express to create a HTTPS server, use secure Websocket and the port 443.
I recently encountered a problem where a corporate client's firewall blocked the wss-connection to only the WebRTC server. The error logged in the user's browser was "ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT", which means the user never connects via Websocket. This has not happened with any other clients.
The Websocket connection works normally between the user and the main server, and no rules have been added to their firewall to use our app.
Has anyone encountered something similar? What kind of a firewall setting might cause this? Could this be a cors problem, since the servers are on their own sub-domains?
The main server could be restricting the type of data sent on port 443, which will use SSL to secure that transmitted data.
Refer to this page for information on the "Well-know port numbers".
The WebRTC audio data may need to be transmitted on its own dedicated port number that has been configured on the main server for this.
The problem was that the main server WebSocket used TCP and the WebRTC server used UDP, and UDP was blocked by corporate firewall on default.
WebRTC should use TCP as a backup, but I'm assuming UDP is still needed for the handshake.
my question is simple
When you send data through TCP/IP protocol with EX:firefox you can receive reply on some random port that the browser listen on, while when i try to use a port for another task like CS Gaming or anything else it don't work unless i use kind of VPN ?
PS: there r no firewall blocking connection and port forwarding from my router didn't work as well.
Browsers are client apps that make outbound connections to web servers. When connecting to a server through a router’s NAT, the NAT takes note of the source and destination IP/port pairs so messages sent back from the server on the same connection are automatically routed to the correct client IP/port.
Browsers also support the websocket protocol. This feature makes it seem like the browser is listening on a specific port. However, in reality, it is initiated on a new connection to the server, a connection which remains open all throughout the websocket communication.
What matters is which peer is behind the NAT — the server or the client. For an outbound connection from a client, it can usually use any random port that is available at the time. For an inbound connection to a server, the server's IP/port must be known ahead of time and be routable. If the server is behind a NAT, the router(s) must be configured to make the server reachable from the other side of the NAT.
The server software can make a UPnP request to ask a router to forward inbound packets to the correct IP/Port. The router, depending on its configuration, may or may not honor such a request. If not, the router has to be configured manually by a network administrator.
I used client and the client will create a connection to server via HornetQ and Netty
Each of 1 minute, server will send heart beat and client (who subscribered) will be received this message. In the message, I included the root IP of server
Everything will be OK if this server had only 1 network card (NIC).
But in the case, server have 2 or more network cards. I met issue.
In the message is received by client, the IP of server not right.
I used InetAddress.getLocalHost().getHostAddress() to get to root IP and I known it wrong in this case server had 2 NICs
So can you give me some advise, how I can get right IP here?
Some guys said we can refer "the socket being used for getting right IP". Do you know how we can get it?
First of all I don't understand why you need IP address, If you think of implementing heartbeat, its not required, If you have used org.hornetq.jms.client.HornetQJMSConnectionFactory It automatically does heartbeat check. And If you have two servers and want to differentiate between servers, use a clientId and send it in message header and while listening you can select message based on the clientId or other approach use sync jms calls.
I have a freeswitch based PBX that has been working fine. I was using Skype connect as a SIP provider and I have had no difficulty making and receiving calls using this. Also, no difficulty with internal local-local calls.
I have just changed my sip trunk provider to voip-unlimited (based in the UK) and updated my sip profile accordingly. I can receive calls fine with the new provider, but when I make a call, the other party can hear me, but I cannot hear them. I do not get a ringing tone when I dial out (the remote party's phone rings, he answers the call, he hears me, but I cannot hear him).
I have ports 5060 and 5080 open to both UDP and TCP traffic and the router also supports PnP. I am uncertain if it is a firewall issue but certainly no problems were experienced with Skype connect previously.
the best thing would be to run a packet sniffer (tcpdump or wireshark) and see what's going on when the call is set up.
It might be:
codec negotiation problem
firewall settings problem
NAT traversal problem
Ok, got it sorted.
I set the PBX back to using Skype Connect. I ran wireshark and could see the connection getting established over TCP and the RTP packets flowing to and from the PBX using UDP.
I then switched over to the new SIP trunk provider. I again ran wireshark, could see the connection getting established over TCP, but this time incoming RTP packets were not present.
I checked the router's firewall and all seemed fine. Nothing in the log files etc. I still suspected the router however. Upon googling for my router model (a Netgear WNR2200) I came across a setting to disable the SIP ALG (Application Level Gateway). I did this (disabled) it and problem solved. By the looks of things, the SIP ALG feature of the router was interfering with and breaking SIP. It is supposed to solve some NAT problems, but in this case its use was undesirable.