I'm learning Docker networking. I'm using Docker Desktop on Windows.
I'm trying to understand the following observations:
Short version in a picture:
Longer version:
First setup (data from container to host)
I have a simple app running in a container. It sends one UDP-datagram to a specific port on the host (using "host.docker.internal")
I have a corresponding app running on the host. It listens to the port and is supposed to receive the UDP-datagram.
That works without publishing any ports in docker (expected behavior!).
Second setup (data from host to container)
I have a simple app on the host. It sends one UDP-datagram to a specific port on the loopback network (using "localhost")
I have a corresponding app running in a container. It listens to the port and is supposed to receives the UDP-datagram.
That works only if the container is run with option -p port:port/udp (expected behavior!).
Third setup (combination of the other two)
I have an app "Requestor" running in a container. It sends a UDP request-message to a specific port on the host and then wants to receive a response-message.
I have a corresponding app "Responder" running on the host. It listens to the port and is supposed to receive the request-message. Then it sends a UDP response-message to the endpoint of the request-message.
This works as well, and - that's what I don't understand - without publishing the port for the response-message!
How does this work? I'm pretty sure there's some basic networking-knowledge that I simply don't have already to explain this. I would be pleased to learn some background on this.
Sidenote:
Since I can do curl www.google.com successfully from inside a container, I realize that a container definitely must not publish ports to receive any data. But there's TCP involved here to establish a connection. UDP on the other hand is "connectionless", so that can't be the (whole) explanation.
After further investigation, NAT seems to be the answer.
According to these explanations, a NAT is involved between the loopback interface and the docker0 bridge.
This is less recognizable with Docker Desktop for Windows because of the following (source):
Because of the way networking is implemented in Docker Desktop for Windows, you cannot see a docker0 interface on the host. This interface is actually within the virtual machine.
I'm running Docker Desktop for Mac on host, it is running two containers.
Container-1: linux-based OS, running UDP-based server program listening on 14xxx port (udp://:14xxx/).
Container-2: linux-based OS, python application sending/receiving data via UDP address as udp://14xxx/ without any specific hostname.
Question: My python app on Container-2 is able to send on UDP port, but never receives anything back from Container-1.
Given UDP works differently from TCP & HTTP protocols..
How can I establish successful UDP communication between two docker containers running on same host (MacOS)?
Various things that I have tried, but no luck.
Tried running both containers using --network host option.
Tried creating a new docker network testnet and started containers using --network testnet option.
Never mind. I found the solution.
First, it was not a docker thing at all.
In my python application on Container-2, I used environment variables to determine the UDP address. Apparently, these variables were not set properly. Hence, the confusion/error.
Second, "--network host" is still a VALID argument to have for both running Docker containers to make sure they discover/talk to each other.
Hope it helps!
I want to run an application (the OLA server, olad) inside a container under Docker for Mac. (Version 18.06.1-ce-mac73 on Mojave, all up-to-date.) The particular OLA configuration I am using (for the Art-Net protocol) works by sending and receiving UDP broadcast data over port 6454 on a particular physical ethernet interface on the host, which is in turn connected to an external device under control. Normally, when starting the olad server, one specifies the interface or IP address on which it should send/receive the broadcast messages.
My struggle is getting the UDP messages to and from the interface from inside the container. I don't appear to have access to that physical interface or network inside the Docker for Mac container, even if I run with --network host. My understanding is that this is because of a quirk of the way Docker for Mac is implemented, with an extra VM between my container and the hardware. That VM sees the hardware, but I don't.
Simply running the docker instance with -p 6454:6454/udp doesn't work, either, maybe unsurprisingly. I could see where that might allow incoming traffic to the container to find its way to the server, but the server inside still can't find the outside network/device in the other direction. And I'm not sure how OSX would necessarily get that data from the interface to the docker bridge anyway.
How can I get direct, bidirectional access to that interface or network from inside the container? Or if I cannot, is there some kind of workaround, maybe via socat where I could tunnel that network in through a Unix socket that is shareable between host and container?
I am trying to connect my BACNET client which has been containerized and the BACNET server which is running on the host machine. I am using Docker for Windows on Windows 10 (host machine) with Linux containers.
I have tried the following:
a. Publishing the ports 47808 for the client container with the run command.
b. Running the container with network=host, to access services of localhost.
c. Tried specifying the gateway IP as the server's IP address with run command.
d. Running the container in the same subnet as my server
e. Running the container with the host IP specified and the ports published.
My bacnet server, taken from https://sourceforge.net/projects/bacnet/ always connects to the DockerNAT, 10.0.75.1? Any idea why does this happens? The server application is not a container but an executable file.
Server IP:10.0.75.1 (dockerNAT)
Client container running on host machine.
From a quick google:
For Windows containers this component is not used and containers and
their ports are only accessible via the NATed IP address.
With respect to BACnet, this is going to put you in a world of hurt. You will have to use BACnet BBMD with NAT support in your container to achieve this, and your BACnet Client will have to register as a BACnet Foreign Device. The BACnet Stack at SourceForge does seem to have some NAT support (the code seems to be there but I have never tested it in its original form).
So what you are seeing is 'expected', but your solution is going to require that you become much more familiar with BACnet BBMDs than you ever want to be. Read the BACnet specification carefully. Good luck.
I'm trying to make a docker machine available to my Windows by a host name. After creating it like
docker-machine create -d virtualbox mymachine
and setting up a docker container that exposes the port 80, how can I give that docker machine a host name such that I can enter "http://mymachine/" into my browser to load the website? When I change "mymachine" to the actual IP address then it works.
There is an answer to this question but I would like to achieve it without an entry in the hosts file. Is that possible?
You might want to refer to docker documentaion:
https://docs.docker.com/engine/userguide/networking/#exposing-and-publishing-ports
You expose ports using the EXPOSE keyword in the Dockerfile or the
--expose flag to docker run. Exposing ports is a way of documenting which ports are used, but does not actually map or open any ports.
Exposing ports is optional.
You publish ports using the --publish or --publish-all flag to docker
run. This tells Docker which ports to open on the container’s network
interface. When a port is published, it is mapped to an available
high-order port (higher than 30000) on the host machine, unless you
specify the port to map to on the host machine at runtime. You cannot
specify the port to map to on the host machine when you build the
image (in the Dockerfile), because there is no way to guarantee that
the port will be available on the host machine where you run the
image.
I also suggest reviewing the -P flag as it differs from the -p one.
Also i suggest you try "Kitematic" for Windows or Mac, https://kitematic.com/ . It's much simpler (but dont forget to commit after any changes!)
Now concerning the network in your company, it has nothing to do with docker, as long as you're using docker locally on your computer it wont matter what configuration your company set. Even you dont have to change any VM network config in order to expose things to your local host, all comes by default if you're using Vbox ( adapter 1 ==> NAT & adapter 2 ==> host only )
hope this is what you're looking for
If the goal is to keep it as simple as possible for multiple developers, localhost will be your best bet. As long as the ports you're exposing and publishing are available on host, you can just use http://localhost in the browser. If it's a port other than 80/443, just append it like http://localhost:8080.
If you really don't want to go the /etc/hosts or localhost route, you could also purchase a domain and have it route to 127.0.0.1. This article lays out the details a little bit more.
Example:
dave-mbp:~ dave$ traceroute yoogle.com
traceroute to yoogle.com (127.0.0.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 localhost (127.0.0.1) 0.742 ms 0.056 ms 0.046 ms
Alternatively, if you don't want to purchase your own domain and all developers are on the same network and you are able to control DHCP/DNS, you can setup your own DNS server to include a private route back to 127.0.0.1. Similar concept to the Public DNS option, but a little more brittle since you might allow your devs to work remote, outside of a controlled network.
Connecting by hostname requires that you go through hostname to IP resolution. That's handled by the hosts file and falls back to DNS. This all happens before you ever touch the docker container, and docker machine itself does not have any external hooks to go out and configure your hosts file or DNS servers.
With newer versions of Docker on windows, you run containers with HyperV and networking automatically maps ports to localhost so you can connect to http://localhost. This won't work with docker-machine since it's spinning up virtualbox VM's without the localhost mapping.
If you don't want to configure your hosts file, DNS, and can't use a newer version of docker, you're left with connecting by IP. What you can do is use a free wildcard DNS service like http://xip.io/ that maps any name you want, along with your IP address, back to that same IP address. This lets you use things like a hostname based reverse proxy to connect to multiple containers inside of docker behind the same port.
One last option is to run your docker host VM with a static IP. Docker-machine doesn't support this directly yet, so you can either rely on luck to keep the same IP from a given range, or use another tool like Vagrant to spin up the docker host VM with a static IP on the laptop. Once you have a static IP, you can modify the host file once, create a DNS entry for every dev, or use the same xip.io URL, to access the containers each time.
If you're on a machine with Multicasting DNS (that's Bonjour on a Mac), then the approach that's worked for me is to fire up an Avahi container in the Docker Machine vbox. This lets me refer to VM services at <docker-machine-vm-name>.local. No editing /etc/hosts, no crazy networking settings.
I use different Virtualbox VMs for different projects for my work, which keeps a nice separation of concerns (prevents port collisions, lets me blow away all the containers and images without affecting my other projects, etc.)
Using docker-compose, I just put an Avahi instance at the top of each project:
version: '2'
services:
avahi:
image: 'enernoclabs/avahi:latest'
network_mode: 'host'
Then if I run a webserver in the VM with a docker container forwarding to port 80, it's just http://machine-name.local in the browser.
You can add a domain name entry in your hosts file :
X.X.X.X mymachine # Replace X.X.X.X by the IP of your docker machine
You could also set up a DNS server on your local network if your app is meant to be reachable from your coworkers at your workplace and if your windows machine is meant to remain up as a server.
that would require to make your VM accessible from local network though, but port forwarding could then be a simple solution if your app is the only webservice running on your windows host. (Note that you could as well set up a linux server to avoid using docker-machine on windows, but you would still have to set up a static IP for this server to ensure that your domain name resolution works).
You could also buy your own domain name (or get a free one) and assign it your docker-machine's IP if you don't have rights to write in your hosts file.
But these solution may not work anymore after some time if app host doesn't have a static IP and if your docker-machine IP changes). Not setting up a static IP doesn't imply it will automatically change though, there should be some persistence if you don't erase the machine to create a new one, but that wouldn't be guaranteed either.
Also note that if you set up a DNS server, you'd have to host it on a device with a static IP as well. Your coworkers would then have to configure their machine to use this one.
I suggest nginx-proxy. This is what I use all the time. It comes in especially handy when you are running different containers that are all supposed to answer to the same port (e.g. multiple web-services).
nginx-proxy runs seperately from your service and listens to docker-events to update it's own configuration. After you spun up your service and query the port nginx-proxy is listening to, you will be redirected to your service. Therefore you either need to start nginx-proxy with the DEFAULT_HOST flag or send the desired host as header param with the request.
As I am running this only with plain docker, I don't know if it works with docker-machine, though.
If you go for this option, you can decide for a certain domain (e.g. .docker) to be completely resolved to localhost. This can be either done company-wide by DNS, locally with hosts file or an intermediate resolver (the specific solution depends on your OS, of course). If you then try to reach http://service1.docker nginx-proxy will route to the container that has then ENV VIRTUAL_HOST=service1.docker. This is really convenient, because it only needs one-time setup and is from then on dynamic.