Hi everyone, I'm currently working on a project where I need to send multicast packets across all available network interfaces using Apple Network Framework's NWConnectionGroup. Specifically, the MacBook (device I am using for sending multicast requests, MacOS: 15.1) is connected to two networks: Wi-Fi (Network 1) and Ethernet (Network 2), and I need to send multicast requests over both interfaces. I tried using the .requiredInterface property as suggested by Eskimo in this post, but I’m running into issues. It seems like I can't create an NWInterface object because it doesn't have any initializers. Here is the code which I wrote: var multicast_group_descriptor : NWMulticastGroup var multicast_endpoint : NWEndpoint multicast_endpoint = NWEndpoint.hostPort(host: NWEndpoint.Host("234.0.0.1"), port: NWEndpoint.Port(rawValue: 49154)!) var connection_group : NWConnectionGroup var multicast_params : NWParameters multicast_params = NWParameters.udp var interface = NWInterface(NWInterface.InterfaceType.wiredEthernet) I get following error: 'NWInterface' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers I also experimented with the .requiredInterfaceType property. Even when I set it to .wiredEthernet and then change it to .wifi, I am still unable to send requests over the Wi-Fi network. Here is the code I wrote: var multicast_params : NWParameters multicast_params = NWParameters.udp multicast_params.allowLocalEndpointReuse = true multicast_params.requiredInterfaceType = .wiredEthernet var ip = multicast_params.defaultProtocolStack.internetProtocol! as! NWProtocolIP.Options ip.disableMulticastLoopback = true connection_group = NWConnectionGroup(with: multicast_group_descriptor, using: multicast_params) connection_group.stateUpdateHandler = { state in print(state) if state == .ready { connection_group.send(content: "Hello from machine on 15".data(using: .utf8)) { error in print("Send to mg1 completed on wired Ethernet with error \(error?.errorCode)") var params = connection_group.parameters params.requiredInterfaceType = .wifi connection_group.send(content: "Hello from machine on 15 P2 on Wi-Fi".data(using: .utf8)) { error in print("Send to mg1 completed on Wi-Fi with error \(error?.errorCode)") } } } } Is this expected behavior when using NWConnectionGroup? Or is there a different approach I should take to ensure multicast requests are sent over both interfaces simultaneously? Any insights or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, Harshal

Hi everyone, I’m working with the DNSServiceGetAddrInfo API and came across the following statement in the documentation: If the call succeeds then it initializes the DNSServiceRef, returns kDNSServiceErr_NoError, and the query begins and will last indefinitely until the client terminates the query by passing this DNSServiceRef to DNSServiceRefDeallocate(_) I’m trying to understand exactly what this means in practice. Specifically, after receiving a response with kDNSServiceFlagsMoreComing, being set to 0 does it imply that the OS itself continues querying the DNS periodically or indefinitely, even after we've already received some results? Or does it only continue fetching additional results related to the initial query until we explicitly terminate it? Any clarification on the behavior of this query would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Hi, I have been reviewing some previous discussions around networking in macOS, and I’d like to clarify my understanding of the differences between the kernel-space network stack and user-space network stack and validate this understanding based on the information shared in earlier threads. I’m also curious about how these differences impact macOS applications, particularly those requiring maintaining many simultaneous network connections. Understanding Kernel-Space vs User-Space Network Stack Kernel-Space Network Stack (BSD Sockets): The kernel-space networking stack refers to the traditional networking layer that runs in the kernel and handles network communication via BSD sockets. This stack is lower-level and interacts directly with the operating system's networking drivers and hardware. All network connections managed through this stack require a socket (essentially a file descriptor) to be opened, which places limits on the number of file descriptors that can be used (for example, the default 64K limit for sockets). The kernel network stack is traditionally used on macOS (and other UNIX-based systems) for networking tasks, such as when you use system APIs like BSD sockets. User-Space Network Stack (Network Framework): The user-space network stack in macOS (via the Network framework) allows applications to handle networking tasks without directly using the kernel. This provides more flexibility and performance benefits for certain types of network operations, as the networking stack is managed in user space rather than kernel space. This approach reduces overhead and allows more control over networking configurations. In theory, with user-space networking, the application wouldn't be bound by kernel-level socket limits, and it could handle many more simultaneous connections efficiently. In previous posts on that thread, Quinn mentioned that the Network framework in macOS can rely on the user-space stack (by default) for network operations, but there are still cases where macOS falls back to using the kernel stack (i.e., BSD sockets) under certain conditions. One key example is when the built-in firewall is enabled. This prevents user-space networking from functioning as expected, and the system defaults to using the kernel's BSD sockets for network communication. In the same discussion, it was also highlighted that NECP (Network Extension Control Plane) could place further limitations on user-space networking, and eventually, systems may run into issues like ENOSPC errors due to excessive simultaneous network flows. This suggests that while user-space networking can offer more flexibility, it's not immune to limits imposed by other system resources or configurations. Given the information above, I wanted to confirm: Is the above understanding correct and does the macOS Network framework still use the user-space networking stack in macOS 14 and beyond? Under what conditions would the system fall back to using the kernel stack (BSD sockets) instead of the user-space stack? For example, does enabling the firewall still disable user-space networking? What is the practical impact of this fallback on applications that require many simultaneous network connections? Specifically, are there any limitations like the 64K socket limit that developers should be aware of when the system uses the user space stack, and what are the best practices to manage large numbers of connections?

Hi Everyone, I’m working on a communication system for my app using NWConnection with the UDP protocol. The connection is registered to a custom serial dispatch queue. However, I’m trying to understand what the behavior will be in a scenario where the connection is canceled while there are still pending receive operations in progress. Scenario Overview: The sender is transmitting n = 100 packets to the receiver, out of which 40 packets have already been sent (i.e., delivered to the Receiver). The receiver has posted m = 20 pending receive operations, where each receive operation is responsible for handling one packet. The receiver has already successfully processed x = 10 packets. At the time of cancellation, the receiver’s buffer still holds m = 20 packets that are pending for processing, and k = 10 pending receive callbacks are in the dispatch queue, waiting to be executed. At same time when the 10th packet was processed another thread triggers .cancel() on this accepted NWConnection (on the receiver side), I need to understand the impact on the pending receive operations and their associated callbacks. My Questions: What happens to the k = 10 pending receive callbacks that are in the dispatch queue waiting to be triggered when the connection is canceled? Will these callbacks complete successfully and process the data? Or, because the connection is canceled, will they complete with failure? What happens to the remaining pending receive operations that were initiated but have not yet been scheduled in the dispatch queue? For the pending receive operations that were already initiated (i.e., the network stack is waiting to receive the data, but the callback hasn’t been scheduled yet), will they fail immediately when the connection is canceled? Or is there any chance that the framework might still process these receives before the cancellation fully takes effect?