NAT Revelio: Detecting NAT444 in the ISP

  • Andra Lutu
  • Marcelo Bagnulo
  • Amogh Dhamdhere
  • K. C. Claffy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9631)


In this paper, we propose NAT Revelio, a novel test suite and methodology for detecting NAT deployments beyond the home gateway, also known as NAT444 (e.g., Carrier Grade NAT). Since NAT444 solutions may impair performance for some users, understanding the extent of NAT444 deployment in the Internet is of interest to policymakers, ISPs, and users. We perform an initial validation of the NAT Revelio test suite within a controlled NAT444 trial environment involving operational residential lines managed by a large operator in the UK. We leverage access to a unique SamKnows deployment in the UK and collect information about the existence of NAT444 solutions from 2,000 homes and 26 ISPs. To demonstrate the flexibility of NAT Revelio, we also deployed it in project BISmark, an open platform for home broadband internet research. We analyze the results and discuss our findings.



This work has been partially funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) grant no. 317647 (Leone). This work was supported by the U.S. NSF grants CNS-1513283 and CNS-1528148 and CNS-1111449. We would like to thank Sam Crawford and Andrea Soppera for their feedback and numerous discussions while designing NAT Revelio, as well as the support for the large-scale deployments of Revelio on the SamKnows UK panel. We also thank Guilherme Martins for his support during the BISmark deployment and Dario Ercole for his help validating NAT Revelio.


  1. 1.
    List of spells in Harry Potter. Accessed 04 October 2015
  2. 2.
    UPnP Forum. Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device (IGD) V 2.0, December 2010. Accessed 15 June 2014
  3. 3.
    Aitken, B.: MC/159 Report on the Implications of Carrier Grade Network Address Translators. Final Report for Ofcom (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Crawford, S., Eardley, P., Morton, A.: A Reference Path and Measurement Points for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance. RFC 7398, February 2015Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Detal, G., Hesmans, B., Bonaventure, O., Vanaubel, Y., Donnet, B.: Revealing middlebox interference with tracebox. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Internet Measurement Conference, pp. 1–8. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., Doshi, J.: Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications. RFC 7021, September 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Downey, A.B.: Using pathchar to estimate internet link characteristics. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication, SIGCOMM 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., Roberts, P.: Issues with IP Address Sharing. RFC 6269, June 2011Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kreibich, C., Weaver, N., Nechaev, B., Paxson, V.: Netalyzr: illuminating the edge network. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, pp. 246–259. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Müller, A., Wohlfart, F., Carle, G.: Analysis and topology-based traversal of cascaded large scale NATs. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Workshop on Hot Topics in Middleboxes and Network Function Virtualization (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., Ashida, H.: Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs). RFC 6888, April 2013Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., Lear, E.: Address Allocation for Private Internets. RFC 1918, February 1996Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., Wing, D.: Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN). RFC, October 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SamKnows™: Methodology and technical information relating to theSamKnows™ testing platform - SQ301-002-EN (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Skoberne, N., Maennel, O., Phillips, I., Bush, R., Zorz, J., Ciglaric, M.: IPv4 Address sharing mechanism classification and tradeoff analysis. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 22(2), 391–404 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sundaresan, S., Burnett, S., Feamster, N., De Donato, W.: Bismark: a testbed for deploying measurements and applications in broadband access networks. In: 2014 USENIX Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 2014), pp. 383–394 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sundaresan, S., De Donato, W., Feamster, N., Teixeira, R., Crawford, S., Pescapè, A.: Broadband internet performance: a view from the gateway. In: ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 41, pp. 134–145. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., Azinger, M.: IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space. RFC 6598, April 2012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andra Lutu
    • 1
  • Marcelo Bagnulo
    • 2
  • Amogh Dhamdhere
    • 3
  • K. C. Claffy
    • 3
  1. 1.Simula Research LaboratoryLysakerNorway
  2. 2.University Carlos III of MadridGetafeSpain
  3. 3.CAIDA/UC San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations