through
thumb
thoxModem protocols#
On top of the modem layer (see Modem devices) lies application protocols, using some transport, session and presentation layers. This page mostly describes protocols implemented using ComputerCraft modems or equivalent, which are broadcast-only networks with very basic mechanisms, where most protocols are actually made to be between two devices, which leads to transport protocols introducing addressing on top of the modem API.
Hence, two approaches co-exist:
The Rednet approach: using port numbers as addresses on a network, with protocols being part of the message as a string; see
sProtocolin rednet.send.The “one port, one protocol” approach: using port numbers as protocol identifiers, with messages not compatible with Rednet messages.
The first approach is embedded in the ComputerCraft ROM, therefore is accessible to any computer attached to a modem on any Minecraft server including the mod. It is the officially recommended way to network. The second approach has mainly be used by third-party OSes such as OneOS or OPUS OS, and also has limits which we will describe in this section.
Note however that Rednet is not the only protocol of its kind, and others have been created either for answering Rednet’s identified weaknesses, or for funsies.
Rednet#
Rednet uses port numbers as adresses, with the exception of two special port numbers:
65533(known asrednet.CHANNEL_REPEAT): the repeat channel, which allows physical networks to communicate with each other using physical relays.65535(known asrednet.CHANNEL_BROADCAST): the broadcast channel, which allows a message to be sent to all computers on all connected physical networks (repeaters share these messages as any other Rednet message).
Any Rednet message is a table composed of the following members:
nMessageID: a pseudo-random number in the \([1, 2^{32} - 1]\) range. This member allows a Rednet-enabled device to recognize the message as a Rednet message, and repeaters to mitigate loops by not transmitting the same message in a given timespan (currently 30 seconds).nRecipient: the ID of the computer to which the message is sent.message: the message.sProtocol: the protocol as a string ornil.
As a globally unique number, Rednet uses the computer ID, an integer which is guaranteed to be unique for a given world (NOT server) in the \([0, 2^{32} - 1]\) range. To determine the source of a Rednet message, the “reply channel” is used by filling it with the computer ID.
Warning
The computer ID can be non-unique in case computers with a given ID are duplicated (through cheating or otherwise), although this might cause other problems such as intricated filesystems between the two computers having the same ID.
Plus, the computer ID can be spoofed; one way to do this in CraftOS
is to reimplement rednet over the modem API but getting the ID to use
through other means, such as having a idToSpoof constant.
On a Rednet-enabled device, two channels are opened by default for receiving messages: the broadcast channel, and the modem channel with the computer ID as the port number, e.g. channel 14 for a computer which ID is 14, for direct messages or answers; see rednet.open.
Warning
Notice that there is no limit to the ID a computer can be assigned except
the Java int type maximum value, which is \(2^{32} - 1\), where the
modem number can only between \(0\) and \(2^{16} - 1\). There are
two cases that might cause unexpected behaviours:
The computer ID exceeds \(2^{16} - 1\), which is not a valid port number.
The computer ID is a reserved Rednet channel number amongst 65533 (known in CraftOS as
rednet.CHANNEL_BROADCAST) and 65535 (known in CraftOS asrednet.CHANNEL_REPEAT), or even 65534 (known in CraftOS asrednet.CHANNEL_GPS) for that matter.
The computer identifier should be lesser or equal to 65532 for it to have no unexpected behaviour on a Rednet network, which is NOT GUARANTEED. Note that the computer identifier should be unique to the world it is into, so that means the computer counter (not computer count) should not exceed 65532. This should cause an anomaly on servers using ComputerCraft in an intense manner, although I have not found the case to have happened on forums.
See IDAssigner.getNextID and Java Primitive Types and Values.
When receiving a new message, the Rednet event loop checks if the message
is a table and has a nMessageID member set to understand it as a
Rednet message, which allows the Rednet and the “port protocols” approaches
to coexist on the network; see rednet.run.
Note
This means that when implementing your own protocol not using the Rednet
API, you should be aware that Rednet messages might arrive on your port
number; you need to either not use tables as messages, or use tables but
have a member that allows you to recognize messages in your protocol’s
vocabulary, or at least ignore Rednet messages defining the
nMessageID field.
The advantages of using protocols on top of Rednet are the following:
There is a “hardware” limit to the number of ports you can open on a modem: 128 ports, which even if unlikely is still reachable. Using the Rednet approach, there is no such arbitrary limit, as all string combinations (for the
sProtocolfield) are allowed.Rednet has a “repeat” system, using the repeat channel; this is especially useful for messages on wireless modems, which can travel so many blocks at once (64 blocks, or 16 during a storm, in the default configuration). With this system, likely to be implemented by other players as well on a server, you can have Rednet repeaters, which by default behave like hubs (they repeat messages on all other modems, but do not optimize traffic by remembering which host is available through which modem), with loop mitigation; see the CraftOS repeat command.
Note
As repeaters behave as hubs and not switches, this means they don’t try to optimize communications by trying to determine on which interface a Rednet-enabled device is, and always repeat on all interfaces. While this means more messages than necessary are exchanged, it also means that several computers can use the same computer ID for Rednet, and that no packet is lost because of bad routing, which has the nice security implication that a device cannot block messages while trying to impersonate a device or censor a device without the repeaters being destroyed.
Todo
It is suggested that the repeat port only could as well be good enough,
or at least multiplexing individual channels with a mod by 60000 (e.g.
devices 5, 60005 and 120005 share the same port and check if the
nRecipient is set correctly to their address; an idea I find really
clever by Lupus590).
However, this field is not checked in classic Rednet that the
nRecipient corresponds to the computer ID, making this approach
non-retrocompatible, which is a real shame…
Wojbie suggested that this number is very high anyway, and that servers having as many computer IDs as that should use other protocols than classic Rednet. As of today, I haven’t decided on what to recommend in this documentation, or how to describe the case.
However, Wojbie suggested an evolution of Rednet where messages would
all be sent and received on CHANNEL_REPEAT and Rednet messages
could have a nReplyChannel field as the modem equivalent, but
which could go far higher than the channel number; and of course,
when receiving a modem message, the nRecipient field is checked,
on the contrary to classic Rednet. See their suggestion as a
valid implementation.
See the rednet reference for more information.
Some known protocols running over Rednet are the following:
sProtocol |
Name |
|---|---|
|
Rednet lookup protocol; see Rednet lookup protocol. |
|
Terminal Redirection over Rednet (TRoR); see Rednet TRoR protocol. |
|
Remote Peripheral protocol. |
|
Message Handling protocol, a req/rep transport protocol with subsystem support. |
In the next chapters, we’ll go more in depth on protocols that use Rednet.
Phoenix networking#
Phoenix is an operating system made by JackMacWindows.
While it supports Rednet, it also adds custom routing using packets on
channel 0 and specific reply channels, as tables with the PhoenixNetworking
attribute set to true.
See the following sections for more information:
Other Rednet derivatives#
Todo
Find information about the criticism about Rednet or why the newbies don’t want to use Rednet.
Todo
Find which alternatives to talk about; there are probably some interesting and uninteresting ones. Some alternatives I found:
brednet: “better rednet” by LDDestroier, didn’t figure out the differenciating features with basic Rednet yet.
CryptoNet: adds encryption and PKI-based trusting.
Plus alternative systems brought by systems for their built-in protocols:
OPUS OS: encryption and peer-to-peer-based trusting.
OneOS: ?
Port protocols#
Some protocols do not use Rednet, but the modem channels directly in a UDP
or EtherTypes fashion. Messages in such a protocol are either not tables
or tables not defining the nMessageID for distinguishing messages between
Rednet and non-Rednet, although it is to be noted not all implementations
ignore Rednet messages on the given channels.
Some known port protocols are the following:
Channel |
Name |
Protocol |
|---|---|---|
19 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
23 |
|
|
55 |
|
|
139 |
|
|
161 |
|
|
180 |
|
|
188 |
|
|
701 |
|
|
999 |
|
|
1005 |
|
|
1294 |
|
|
3636 |
|
|
3773 |
|
|
4200 |
|
|
4201 |
|
|
4202 |
|
|
4203 |
|
|
4204 |
|
|
4205 |
|
|
4206 |
|
|
4207 |
|
|
4208 |
|
|
4210 |
|
|
4211 |
|
|
4212 |
|
|
4242 |
|
|
5222 |
|
|
5731 |
|
|
5900 |
|
|
5901 |
|
|
5902 |
|
|
8366 |
|
|
11000 |
|
|
23032 |
|
|
31415 |
|
|
60000 |
|
|
62381 |
|
|
65530 |
|
|
65533 |
|
|
65534 |
|
|
65535 |
|
Todo
Describe LDDestroier’s brednet protocol, and see if it doesn’t actually fit on the current page.
Remarks:
OneOS has an explicit comment about using channels between 4200 and 4300. It also has an
Wireless.Channels.Ignoredset to 4299, which is not used within the code.OPUS OS uses ports in the \([16384, 32767]\) range for connections.
Some references for this work are:
The ComputerCraft Forums and ComputerCraft: Tweaked Forums, which hosts many project pages for the mods (links to the dedicated topics are usually provided; if they’re not, feel free to contribute!).
Lupus590’s ComputerCraft Modem Channel Usage, a page that aims at referencing existing protocols and best practices for ComputerCraft networking.
In the following chapters, we’ll go more in depth on port protocols.