[p2p-hackers] Final version of "P2P over NAT" paper available

David Barrett dbarrett at quinthar.com
Sat Feb 19 21:43:12 UTC 2005


I'm sorry, I didn't make my question clear.  Given that you can hole 
punch for 82-97% of NAT'd users, how many users are behind NATs in the 
first place?

For example if only 1% of users is behind a NAT then hole punching 
doesn't much matter.  But it's 25%, 50%, or 75%, it becomes critical.

Does this question make sense?

Likewise, I'm interested in a similar stat for firewalls.

Sorry for not being clear the first time.

-david

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:32 pm, Alex Pankratov wrote:
> Well, based on same stats it looks like 'hole punching' as it's
> described in p2pnat paper succeeds in ~84% of the cases. Our
> proggy is a bit more complex than that so our success rate is
> about 97%.
>
> Alex
>
> David Barrett wrote:
>
>> Heh, great validation of the results.
>> So if what's the latest values for the following chart:
>>                         NAT'd     Firewalled
>>                      +---------+-------------
>> % Able to hole punch |  82.2%  |   50-60% *
>> % of total internet  |   ??    |     ??
>>                      +---------+-------------
>> % Benefiting         |   ??    |     ??
>> * http://zgp.org/pipermail/p2p-hackers/2004-December/002215.html
>> Basically, I'd like to get a better understanding of what fraction of 
>> all
>> internet users might benefit from these techniques, estimated as the 
>> product
>> of the above rows.
>> -david
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: p2p-hackers-bounces at zgp.org 
>>> [mailto:p2p-hackers-bounces at zgp.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Alex Pankratov
>>> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:04 PM
>>> To: Peer-to-peer development.
>>> Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Final version of "P2P over NAT" paper 
>>> available
>>>
>>> Bryan,
>>>
>>> Quoting your paper -
>>>
>>>>  .. we find that about 82% of the NATs tested support hole punching
>>>>  for UDP.
>>>>  ..
>>>
>>>> The NAT Check data we gathered consists of 380 reported data points
>>>
>>>>  ..
>>>
>>> I happened to have statistics for more than 16000 'data poits', and
>>> check this out - the rate of 'identity preserving' NAT devices suitable
>>> for hole punching works out to be 82.2%. *UDP* hole punching that is.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> Bryan Ford wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> For those interested in P2P-over-NAT issues, I just wanted to announce
>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>> the final version of the following paper, to appear in USENIX '05, is
>>>
>>> now
>>>
>>>> available:
>>>>
>>>> Peer-to-Peer Communication Across Network Address Translators, Bryan
>>>
>>> Ford,
>>>
>>>> Pyda Srisuresh, and Dan Kegel. USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 
>>>> April
>>>> 2005.
>>>> (PDF) http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat.pdf
>>>> (HTML) http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/
>>>>
>>>> An earlier draft of this paper was announced on this list a few months
>>>
>>> ago.
>>>
>>>> The final version includes, among other minor revisions, new "NAT 
>>>> Check"
>>>> testing results based on almost twice the number of data points as the
>>>> original draft.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Bryan
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>
>>>> Network Address Translation (NAT) causes well-known difficulties for
>>>> peer-to-peer (P2P) communication, since the peers involved may not be
>>>> reachable at any globally valid IP address. Several NAT traversal
>>>
>>> techniques
>>>
>>>> are known, but their documentation is slim, and data about their
>>>
>>> robustness
>>>
>>>> or relative merits is slimmer. This paper documents and analyzes one of
>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> simplest but most robust and practical NAT traversal techniques,
>>>
>>> commonly
>>>
>>>> known as ``hole punching.'' Hole punching is moderately well-understood
>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>> UDP communication, but we show how it can be reliably used to set up
>>>> peer-to-peer TCP streams as well. After gathering data on the
>>>
>>> reliability of
>>>
>>>> this technique on a wide variety of deployed NATs, we find that about
>>>
>>> 82% of
>>>
>>>> the NATs tested support hole punching for UDP, and about 64% support
>>>
>>> hole
>>>
>>>> punching for TCP streams. As NAT vendors become increasingly conscious
>>>
>>> of the
>>>
>>>> needs of important P2P applications such as Voice over IP and online
>>>
>>> gaming
>>>
>>>> protocols, support for hole punching is likely to increase in the
>>>
>>> future.
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> p2p-hackers mailing list
>>>> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
>>>> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
>>>> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2p-hackers mailing list
>>> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
>>> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
>>> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2p-hackers mailing list
>> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
>> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
>> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
>>
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences



More information about the P2p-hackers mailing list