[QFJ-777] Determine session's IP address Created: 15/Apr/14 Updated: 02/Apr/15 Resolved: 17/Apr/14 |
|
Status: | Closed |
Project: | QuickFIX/J |
Component/s: | Networking |
Affects Version/s: | None |
Fix Version/s: | 1.6.0 |
Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Default |
Reporter: | Daniil S | Assignee: | Christoph John |
Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
Labels: | None |
Description |
Really need a way of determining IP address for the session. This is especially useful for incoming sessions. |
Comments |
Comment by Christoph John [ 15/Apr/14 ] |
Hi, could you please elaborate further on what you need? Do I understand correctly that you want to see the IP address of the counterparty? Is this |
Comment by Daniil S [ 15/Apr/14 ] |
Its in similar area. We have a need to authenticate/restrict incoming sessions by source IP address. Either whole address or a regex. And its useful to have this for live debugging. I've modified (probably really badly) QFJ 1.3.3 to have method session.getRemoteIP() and will have to do similar with 1.6 |
Comment by Christoph John [ 15/Apr/14 ] |
Hmm, but we have configuration AllowedRemoteAddresses since some versions already. Doesn't this work for you? |
Comment by Daniil S [ 15/Apr/14 ] |
Yes, but it won't take in regex. |
Comment by Christoph John [ 16/Apr/14 ] |
You could do a Session.getResponder().getRemoteIPAddress() which will return the address of the remote peer. Is this what you want. |
Comment by Daniil S [ 17/Apr/14 ] |
This does the job perfectly! I feel the need to point out how thorough this project is and that I simply don't spend enough time digging through it. |
Comment by Christoph John [ 17/Apr/14 ] |
Great, thanks for the feedback. |
Comment by Daniil S [ 17/Apr/14 ] |
Thanks, this would definitely be a great improvement. One note though, since you're using toString() method it will be a full address (/192.0.0.1:1111) not just an IP (192.0.0.1). This should be noted in a comment to avoid potential comparison problems (people may assume actual IP and not full address). |
Comment by Christoph John [ 17/Apr/14 ] |
Thanks for the info. Of course, you're right. I've changed the method name and comment to reflect this. |