On the Applicability of Knowledge Based NAT-Traversal for Home Networks

  • Andreas Müller
  • Andreas Klenk
  • Georg Carle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4982)


The presence of Network Address Translation (NAT) is a hindrance when accessing services within home networks, because NAT breaks the end-to-end connectivity model of the Internet protocol suite. Communication across NATs is only possible if it is initiated from a host belonging to the internal network. Thus, services expecting a connection established from the outside fail in most situations. Existing approaches for NAT-Traversal do not cover the full range of NAT-Traversal methods and fail in certain situations, or deliver sub optimal results in others. Part of the problem of existing approaches is that they do not differentiate between different types of applications. We argue that the classification of applications into four service categories helps to determine the best matching NAT-Traversal technique. An extensive field test enables us to acquire knowledge about the success rates of promising NAT-Traversal techniques. These results will help us to develop a knowledge driven NAT-Traversal framework making its choice based on an understanding of NAT behavior, NAT-Traversal options and the service category of the application.


NAT-Traversal Field Test on NAT Behavior 


  1. 1.
    Srisuresh, P., Holdrege, M.: IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations. RFC 2663, Internet Engineering Task Force (August 1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenberg, J.: Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Methodology for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Internet-Draft - work in progress, Internet Engineering Task Force (October 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P.: Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN). Internet Draft - work in progress. Internet Engineering Task Force (January 2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forum, UPnPTM.: Internet gateway device (IGD) standardized device control protocol (November 2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Srisuresh, P., Kuthan, J., Rosenberg, J., Molitor, A., Rayhan, A.: Middlebox communication architecture and framework. RFC 3303, Internet Engineering Task Force (August 2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., Mahy, R.: STUN: Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators (NATs). RFC 3489, Internet Engineering Task Force (March 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Audet, F., Jennings, E.,, C.: NAT Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP. RFC 4787, Internet Engineering Task Force (January 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guha, S., Francis, P.: Characterization and Measurement of TCP Traversal through NATs and Firewalls. In: Proceedings of ACM Interet Measurement Conference (IMC), Berkeley, CA (October 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stiemerling, M., Tschofenig, H., Aoun, C., Davies, E.: NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP). IETF draft - work in progress. Internet Engineering Task Force (October 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheshire, S., Krochmal, M., Sekar, K.: NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP). Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force (September 2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holdrege, M., Srisuresh, P.: Protocol Complications with the IP Network Address Translator. RFC 3027, Internet Engineering Task Force (January 2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ford, B., Srisuresh, P., Kegel, D.: Peer-to-Peer Communication Across Network Address Translation. Technical report, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guha, S., Francis, P.: Towards a Secure Internet Architecture Through Signaling. Technical report, Cornell University (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eppinger, J.: TCP Connections for P2P Applications - A Software Approach to Solving the NAT Problem. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P2P-SIP IETF Working Group,
  16. 16.
    Jennings, C.: NAT Classification Test Results. Internet Draft - work in progress. Internet Engineering Task Force (July 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olsson, M.: Extending the FTP ”ALG” vulnerability to any FTP client (March 2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Francis, P., Guha, S.: Takeda, Y.: NUTSS: A SIP-based Approach to UDP and TCP Network Connectivity. Technical report, Cornell University, Panasonic Communications (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenberg, J.: TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity Establishment. Internet Draft - work in progress. Internet Engineering Task Force (November 2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baset, S.A., Schulzrinne, H.: An Analysis of the Skype Peer-to-Peer Internet Telephony Protocol. Technical report, Columbia University, New York (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Müller
    • 1
  • Andreas Klenk
    • 1
  • Georg Carle
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Networks and InternetUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations