Receive replies to a UDP broadcast

[OBones]

Hi all,

I'm currently trying to receive replies to a UDP broadcast that I sent
and I can't get it to work. I know the datagrams are sent as I see
them with WireShark, but my C# code does not see them.
Here is how I intended things to work:

Socket socket = new Socket(AddressF amily.InterNetw ork,
SocketType.Dgra m, ProtocolType.Ud p);
try
{
// Send data to the broadcast address
IPEndPoint broadcastIEP = new IPEndPoint(IPAd dress.Broadcast ,
port);
socket.Connect( broadcastIEP);
socket.Send(dat a);

// Wait for someone to respond
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
int availableBytes = socket.Availabl e;
if (availableBytes 0)
{
byte[] buffer = new byte[availableBytes];
socket.Receive( buffer, 0, availableBytes,
SocketFlags.Non e);

return ASCIIEncoding.A SCII.GetString( buffer);
}
System.Threadin g.Thread.Sleep( 100);
}
return "Nobody replied";
}
finally
{
socket.Close();
}
The intent is to send a UDP broadcast and wait for the first machine
that replies. The wait should stop after a while.
I must be doing something wrong here, but I'm quite lost as to what I
should be doing. I tried "ReceiveFro m", but it is a blocking call and
it never seems to return. I see the datagrams coming through (using
WireShark) but ReceiveFrom does not return.

Thanks for your help
Cheers
Olivier

[not_a_commie]

There is a whole slew of things that could be the issue here. In the
first place, you should be listening before you send. You'll need to
make another thread to do that or use the BeginReceive method. Second,
don't use the Available property. It's busted. Use the return value on
Receive to know how much data was put into your buffer instead. Third,
I'm pretty sure you'll need to bind to a port (with the Bind method)
to receive any data. In other words, you may need two sockets here.
One to send and one to receive. You may also need to set the option on
the sockets to allow multiple sockets to bind to the same address.

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:36:52 -0800, OBones <ob****@gmail.c omwrote:

Hi all,

I'm currently trying to receive replies to a UDP broadcast that I sent
and I can't get it to work. I know the datagrams are sent as I see
them with WireShark, but my C# code does not see them.

The reply from the person posting as "not_a_comm ie" has a lot of good
suggestions in it. I think that the one most directly applicable to the
immediate issue is that you don't try to receive from the socket until
after you've sent something. With UDP, if you aren't ready to receive
data already when someone else sends data, it's entirely possible that the
network driver will just drop the data altogether and you'll never see it.

You _should_ be able to send and receive broadcast data on the same
socket, but you need to bind the socket to the same IPAddress.Broad cast
address for that to work. Of course, for you to be ready to receive at
the same time you send data on the socket, you'll have to either use the
asynchronous API and call BeginReceive() or have another thread that calls
Receive() before you call Send().

Finally, it's not so much that the Available property is broken, as it is
that it just doesn't really do what most people expect it to do. Network
sockets don't behave exactly the same as other i/o interfaces; in
particular data can come and go without any action on the part of the
client code, depending on the needs of the network driver to manage all of
the network i/o going on at the time. Just because the Available property
indicates there's data to be read, that doesn't mean that by the time you
try to read it, it will still be there.

So, you need a different way of implementing your timeout logic. Since
you're using UDP, I'd say you could probably get away with just setting
the Socket.ReceiveT imeout property (using that with TCP introduces as many
problems as it solves, so you're better off without it in that case...but
UDP should be fine).

I'm not sure that even between our two posts, you have every bit of
information you're going to need to get this work right, but hopefully
it's a nudge in the right direction. :)

Pete