UDP port configuration confusion

[lucaberta]

As posted in: https://www.letscontrolit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3024

I have compiled and ran the latest Mega code and have noticed that a few graphical changes have been done on the GUI, most notably in the Advanced tab.

One thing which has always been very confusing for me was the notion of "UDP port" configuration which in previous versions was put after the syslog IP and syslog level fields.
Now the label has been changed to "Syslog UDP port" and has been moved in between the syslog IP and syslog level field.

Except that the UDP port which is included in that configuration line is NOT used for syslog! It's instead used for the sendSysInfoUDP function which is extremely useful as it allows for automatic discovery of all the ESPEasy units on the local LAN, and they are displayed in a table at the bottom of the main tab, if one decides to put the same UDP port in that configuration item.

Granted, if you put 514 thinking that the port is for syslog (whose default port is 514) things DO work too, but it's quite misleading.

In fact, checking the actual syslog code, port 514 is hardwired in the syslog client at the very top of Networking.ino.

Some cleanup of the configuration and better description of this feature would be in order, in my view. It is extremely useful, and I have discovered it just by coincidence!

[psy0rz]

@jkDesignDE you probably create this change/bug? :)

[lucaberta]

@psy0rz my guess is that the roots of the bug were already there, since the generic "UDP port" label in the advanced configuration page existed already way back when in ESPEasy v1.

When I traced the different lines of code last night it seemed obvious that the new label, probably introduced by @jkDesignDE as you say, goes deeper in the misunderstanding that the UDP port configuration field does NOT belong to the external syslog server configuration, since the 514 port is hardwired in the syslog function in Networking.ino.

Hope this help!

[psy0rz]

ah you're right indeed.

yeah i want to cleanup that networking code a bit, some things are quite fuzzy there and the sysinfo packets use ugly offsets instead of structs (like the other packets do).

also we need to get rid of those magic numbers (use defines), and it needs more comments.

plus i think there are some possible buffer overflows if it receives incorrect packets.

[JK-de]

I ordered and grouped the page without knowing the exact meaning of this item. I thought it belongs to syslog because of its position - sorry.
Will be fixed soon.
Any suggestions for descriptive naming and grouping???

[lucaberta]

You make a very good point @jkDesignDE which is, is there a real name for the "Node List" feature in ESPEasy?

I literally discovered it by coincidence when I decided to test external syslog and found that the UDP port there made no difference, but rather enabled the "Node List" feature in the Main tab.

I am still not 100% sure how it works as I have not checked the code with great attention, but suspect it's a broadcast based UDP protocol, where every node announces its presence to the others listening on the local subnet.

I also suspect that @psy0rz did a few additions between v1 and v2 as we now have additional fields in the Node List table, namely the "type" column which did not exist before, though I suspect that the data is generated locally by "decoding" the "build" field, so maybe the UDP protocol has not been changed at all.

In my view this should be a much highlighted feature as it allows to have a bird's eye view on all the ESPEasy devices in one's network. And maybe we should suggest a "standard" port to use. I use 8266 for it! ;-)

Any feedback?

[beicnet]

Maybe it can bee called "Node List UDP port:" ;)

[tedenda]

I can be wrong, but isn’t the UDP-port also in use when you use global sync?

…

On 4 maj 2017 13:22 +0200, beic ***@***.***>, wrote: Maybe it can bee called "Node List UDP port:" ;) — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[psy0rz]

yeah, global sync and the "node list" is done by the same UDP protocol. its a proprietary ESPEasy UDP protocol thats handled in networking.ino.

since this is still experimental, disable it if you have stability issues.

[beicnet]

You can do it like this to avoid further description confusion! ;)

[tedenda]

Sorry, my previous comment was not so clear… My comment was really ment as an input to the discussion about grouping of settings and also naming of them. And Global Sync was not mentioned together with the UDP-port. Maybe they should stay tougher in the settings. Maybe disable checkbox for Global Sync if no port is set?

…

On 4 maj 2017 17:08 +0200, beic ***@***.***>, wrote: You can do it like this to avoid further description confusion! ;) — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[JK-de]

My suggestion for naming:

## Inter-ESPEasy Communication (experimental) #######################
UDP port:        [0815]
Global sync:     [X]

[psy0rz]

@jkDesignDE yeah like that is nice.

[lucaberta]

How about "ESPEasy Discovery Protocol" instead?

I know I am nitpicking, but I think it's clearer, and Global sync rides on top of this protocol which performs the discovery, so I don't see any conflict nor confusion by the alternative naming.

A name such as "discovery protocol" has been used by many vendors in the past, and is quite clearly understood.

Hey, I have worked at Cisco Systems for 11 years, so I have my biases... :-D

[psy0rz]

Sounds good ! :)

[beicnet]

@lucaberta Not a bad proposition! ;)

[svmac]

That UDP port is not only for discovery, it is used by SendTo command too. Like jkDesignDE, I propose group name "Inter-ESPEasy Network (experimental)".

[lucaberta]

As I said above:

"I know I am nitpicking, but I think it's clearer, and Global sync rides on top of this protocol which performs the discovery, so I don't see any conflict nor confusion by the alternative naming."

The beauty of OSS is that I would be able to change the name in my own fork, if I don't like what has been chosen! 😆

[beicnet]

And why is it labeled as a bug?!? 🥇

[JK-de]

...because the naming "Syslog UDP port" is wrong and it is placed in the wrong group

[beicnet]

Ah, okay!

[uzi18]

Why not 'Global sync udp port' to avoid confusion in rest of configuration? 05.05.2017 9:37 PM "beic" <notifications@github.com> napisał(a):

…

Ah, okay! — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#264 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHOU4T3gxx_AmXbxcjjbNRTRLvFpHuBks5r23p_gaJpZM4NQWP0> .

[beicnet]

Because it's not only using for "Global sync"

[uzi18]

So please put Global sync checkbox and udp port configuration in one place.

[beicnet]

It's already in Poll request query da3b11c !

[ghost]

The UDP protocol usage inherits from the old Nodo project where it was used for peer2peer and broadcast type communication of events. It has also been used within ESP Easy to be able to communicate with (old) Nodo devices that use the Wiznet ethernet controller. That also explains the Unit number usage that was important for all Nodo communication. The Node list is not only for display, but it keeps track of all active nodes in case of unicast traffic to all listening nodes. The size of this list is limited to 32 units to save valuable RAM. (this could also be done with UDP broadcasting but there have been issues with ESP units being less receptive on broadcast traffic for some reason...)

The UDP port is there to configure the basic UDP server process that could effectively handle multiple types of traffic and usage. Just like the generic webserver process on port 80.