Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224189161
CITATIONS
READS
28
5 authors, including:
Cheng-Yuan Ho
Chien-Chao Tseng
LoFTechnology, Inc.
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Y.R. Lin
National Chiao Tung University
184 PUBLICATIONS 1,715 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
94
I. I NTRODUCTION
c 2011 IEEE
1089-7798/11$25.00
HO et al.: TO CALL OR TO BE CALLED BEHIND NATS IS SENSITIVE IN SOLVING THE DIRECT CONNECTION PROBLEM
Callee
Caller
FC
AR
PR
Caller
FC: Full Cone NAT
AR: Addr. Restricted NAT
NL
L
NL
L
NL
L
NL
L
FC
AR
FC
Callee
Successful
Failed
FC
AR
PR
SM
Fig. 1.
SM
PR
SM
NL
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
95
AR
L
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
NL
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
PR
L
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
NL
3
3
3
1
3
1
4
4
SM
L
3
3
3
1
3
1
4
4
NL
3
3
3
1
4
L
3
3
3
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Fig. 2.
1. Connectivity
Check Request
maddr a
maddr c
Linux-based
non-full
Caller
maddr b
Port Restricted
Symmetric
or
Callee
Check
Request
Linux-based
non-full
maddr b
maddr c
Caller
Full Cone or
Address Restricted
Callee
96
TABLE I
NAT B RANDS AND M ODELS IN E XPERIMENTS
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Brand
Dlink
Smc
Corega
Planex
Smc
3com
Belkin
Draytek
Lemel
FC
FC
AR
PR
SM
No
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
AR
Model
Di-604
Smcwbr14-g2
Cg-barmx2
Blw-54mr
SmcWGBR-14n
3crwer 100-75
F5d8231tw4
vigor2104p
Lm-wlg6400
Brand
Edimax
Linux
Linksys
Linksys
Abocom
Asus
Netgear
Zyxel
Freebsd
Model
Br-6204wg
Iptables
Befsr41
WRT150N
Fsm410
Rx3041
Pr614
P334
Pf
PR
SM
9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 3
2 3
3 3
4 3
5 3
6 3
7 3
8 3
9 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fig. 4.
IV. C ONCLUSIONS
In this article, we have investigated the call-role sensitivity
problem and explained why two hosts behind NATs cannot
communicate with each other directly in certain situations
where they ought to have a direct connection. Furthermore,
we have proposed an extra-connectivity check to resolve this
problem. Experimental results show that the proposed scheme
improves 18.71% DCR over ICE and discovers the maximum
number of direct connections across NATs. Accordingly, the
proposed scheme reduces the processing loads of relay servers.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. Egevang and P. Francis, The IP Network Address Translator (NAT),
IETF RFC 1631, May 1994.
[2] J. Rosenberg, J. Weinberger, C. Huitema, and R. Mahy, STUN - Simple
Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) through network address
translators (NATs), IETF RFC 3489, Mar. 2003.
[3] J. Rosenberg, R. Mahy, P. Matthews, and D. Wing, Session Traversal
Utilities for NAT (STUN), IETF RFC 5389, Oct. 2008.
[4] J. Rosenberg, R. Mahy, and P. Matthews, Traversal Using Relays
Around NAT (TURN): relay extensions to Session Traversal Utilities
for NAT (STUN), IETF RFC 5766, Apr. 2010.
[5] J. Rosenberg, Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): a protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal for offer/answer
protocols, IETF RFC 5245, Apr. 2010.
[6] H. Khlifi, J.-C. Gregoire, and J. Phillips, VoIP and NAT/firewalls:
issues, traversal techniques, and a real-world solution, IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 93-99, July 2006.
[7] Y. Takeda, Symmetric NAT traversal using STUN, IETF draft, June
2003.
[8] Y. Wang, Z. Lu, and J. Gu, Research on symmetric NAT traversal in
P2P applications, in Proc. International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology (ICCGI), pg. 59, 2006.