Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorRichter, Philipp
dc.contributor.authorWohlfart, Florian
dc.contributor.authorVallina-Rodriguez, Narseo 
dc.contributor.authorAllman, Mark
dc.contributor.authorBush, Randy
dc.contributor.authorFeldmann, Anja
dc.contributor.authorKreibich, Christian
dc.contributor.authorWeaver, Nicholas
dc.contributor.authorPaxson, Vern
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-13T09:28:16Z
dc.date.available2021-07-13T09:28:16Z
dc.date.issued2016-11-14
dc.identifier.citation1 Netalyzr for Android. Google Play. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=edu.berkeley.icsi.netalyzr.android. 2 A. Tabdili. Carrier Grade NAT: Requirements and Challenges in the Real World . http://www.menog.org/presentations/menog-10/Amir%20Tabdili%20-%20Carrier%20Grade%20NAT.pdf. 3 A10 Networks. Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) Deployment Guide. https://www.a10networks.com/sites/default/files/resource-files/A10-DG-Carrier_Grade_NAT_%28CGN%29_Large_Scale_NAT_%28LSN%29.pdf. 4 S. Alcock, R. Nelson, and D. Miles. Investigating the Impact of Service Provider NAT on Residential Broadband Users. TR, University of Waikato, 2010. 5 APNIC Labs. Customers per AS Measurements. Description: https://labs.apnic.net/?p=526 Dataset: http://stats.labs.apnic.net/aspop. 6 F. Audet and C. Jennings. Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP. RFC 4787 (Best Current Practice), January 2007. Updated by RFCs 6888, 7857. 7 S. M. Bellovin. A Technique for Counting NATted Hosts. In IMW, 2002. 8 BitTorrent.org. DHT Protocol (BEP-05). http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0005.html. 9 E. Bocchi, A. S. Khatouni, S. Traverso, A. Finamore, V. D. Gennaro, M. Mellia, M. Munafo, and D. Rossi. Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Web Browsing. In IWCMC, 2015. 10 M. Boucadair, R. Penno, and D. Wing. Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF). RFC 6970 (Proposed Standard), July 2013. 11 M. Butkiewicz, H. V. Madhyastha, and V. Sekar. Understanding Website Complexity: Measurements, Metrics, and Implications. In IMC, 2011. 12 Cisco. NAT Administration Guide, StarOS Release 17. http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/wireless/asr_5000/17-0/PDF/17-NAT-Admin.pdf. 13 Cymru. Ephemeral Source Port Selection Strategies. https://www.cymru.com/jtk/misc/ephemeralports.html. 14 J. Czyz, M. Allman, J. Zhang, S. Iekel-Johnson, E. Osterweil, and M. Bailey. Measuring IPv6 Adoption. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2014. 15 L. D'Acunto, J.A. Pouwelse, and H.J. Sips. A measurement of NAT & Firewall Characteristics in Peer to Peer Systems. In ASCI, 2009. 16 L. DiCioccio, R. Teixeira, M. May, and C. Kreibich. Probe and Pray: Using UPnP for Home Network Measurements. In PAM, 2012. 17 C. Donley, L. Howard, V. Kuarsingh, J. Berg, and J. Doshi. Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications. RFC 7021 (Informational), September 2013. 18 K. Egevang and P. Francis. The IP Network Address Translator (NAT). RFC 1631 (Informational), May 1994. Obsoleted by RFC 3022. 19 FCC. Measuring Broadband America. https://www.measuringbroadbandamerica.com/. 20 B. Ford, P. Srisuresh, and D. Kegel. Peer-to-Peer Communication Across Network Address Translators. In USENIX ATC, 2005. 21 S. Guha, K. Biswas, B. Ford, S. Sivakumar, and P. Srisuresh. NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP. RFC 5382 (Best Current Practice), October 2008. Updated by RFC 7857. 22 C. Holmberg, S. Hakansson, and G. Eriksson. Web Real-Time Communication Use Cases and Requirements. RFC 7478 (Informational), March 2015. 23 Alan B. Johnston. SIP: Understanding the Session Initiation Protocol. Artech House, Inc., Norwood, MA, USA, 3rd edition, 2009. 24 C. Kreibich, N. Weaver, B. Nechaev, and V. Paxson. Netalyzr: Illuminating The Edge Network. In IMC, 2010. 25 V. Krmicek, J. Vykopal, and R. Krejci. NetFlow Based System for NAT Detection. In ACM CoNEXT, 2009. 26 A. Lutu, M. Bagnulo, A. Dhamdhere, and k. claffy. NAT Revelio: Detecting NAT444 in the ISP. In PAM, 2016. 27 D. MacDonald and B. Lowekamp. NAT Behavior Discovery Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN). RFC 5780 (Experimental), May 2010. 28 G. Maier, F. Schneider, and A. Feldmann. NAT Usage in Residential Broadband Networks. In PAM, 2011. 29 P. Maymounkov and D. Mazieres. Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric. In Peer-to-Peer Systems. Springer, 2002. 30 A. Müller, F. Wohlfart, and G. Carle. Analysis and Topology-based Traversal of Cascaded Large Scale NATs. In ACM HotMiddlebox, 2013. 31 NOW (New Zealand ISP). What if I need a public IP Address? https://support.nownz.co.nz/support/solutions/articles/5000504832-what-if-i-need-a-public-ip-address-. 32 Y. Ohara, K. Nishizuka, K. Chinen, K. Akashi, M. Kohrin, E. Muramoto, and S. Miyakawa. On the Impact of Mobile Network Delays on Connection Establishment Performance of a Carrier Grade NAT Device. In ACM AINTEC, 2014. 33 R. Penno, S. Perreault, M. Boucadair, S. Sivakumar, and K. Naito. Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements. RFC 7857 (Best Current Practice), April 2016. 34 S. Perreault, I. Yamagata, S. Miyakawa, A. Nakagawa, and H. Ashida. Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs). RFC 6888 (Best Current Practice), April 2013. 35 Y. Rekhter, B. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot, and E. Lear. Address Allocation for Private Internets. RFC 1918 (Best Current Practice), February 1996. Updated by RFC 6761. 36 P. Richter, M. Allman, R. Bush, and V. Paxson. A Primer on IPv4 Scarcity. ACM CCR, 45(2), 2015. 37 P. Richter, G. Smaragdakis, D. Plonka, and A. Berger. Beyond Counting: New Perspectives on the Active IPv4 Address Space. In ACM IMC, 2016. 38 J. Rosenberg, A. Keranen, B. B. Lowekamp, and A. B. Roach. TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE). RFC 6544 (Proposed Standard), March 2012. 39 J. Rosenberg, R. Mahy, P. Matthews, and D. Wing. Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN). RFC 5389 (Proposed Standard), October 2008. Updated by RFC 7350. 40 J. Rosenberg, J. Weinberger, C. Huitema, and R. Mahy. STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators (NATs). RFC 3489 (Proposed Standard), March 2003. Obsoleted by RFC 5389. 41 N. Skoberne, O. Maennel, I. Phillips, R. Bush, J. Zorz, and M. Ciglaric. IPv4 Address Sharing Mechanism Classification and Tradeoff Analysis. IEEE/ACM ToN, 2014. 42 Spamhaus. The Policy Block List. https://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/. 43 P. Srisuresh, B. Ford, and D. Kegel. State of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address Translators (NATs). RFC 5128 (Informational), March 2008. 44 L. Wang and J. Kangasharju. Real-world sybil attacks in BitTorrent mainline DHT. In IEEE GLOBECOM, 2012. 45 Z. Wang, Z. Qian, Q. Xu, Z. M. Mao, and M. Zhang. An Untold Story of Middleboxes in Cellular Networks. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2011. 46 J. Weil, V. Kuarsingh, C. Donley, C. Liljenstolpe, and M. Azinger. IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space. RFC 6598 (Best Current Practice), April 2012. 47 D. Wing. NAT Tutorial. In IETF 78, 2010.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12761/310
dc.description.abstractAs ISPs face IPv4 address scarcity they increasingly turn to network address translation (NAT) to accommodate the address needs of their customers. Recently, ISPs have moved beyond employing NATs only directly at individual customers and instead begun deploying Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs) to apply address translation to many independent and disparate endpoints spanning physical locations, a phenomenon that so far has received little in the way of empirical assessment. In this work we present a broad and systematic study of the deployment and behavior of these middleboxes. We develop a methodology to detect the existence of hosts behind CGNs by extracting non-routable IP addresses from peer lists we obtain by crawling the BitTorrent DHT. We complement this approach with improvements to our Netalyzr troubleshooting service, enabling us to determine a range of indicators of CGN presence as well as detailed insights into key properties of CGNs. Combining the two data sources we illustrate the scope of CGN deployment on today's Internet, and report on characteristics of commonly deployed CGNs and their effect on end users.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.titleA Multi-perspective Analysis of Carrier-Grade NAT Deploymenten
dc.typeconference object
dc.conference.date14-16 November 2016
dc.conference.placeSanta Monica, CA, USA
dc.conference.titleThe 16th ACM Internet Measurement Conference 2016 (ACM IMC 2016)*
dc.event.typeconference
dc.pres.typepaper
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.page.final229
dc.page.initial215
dc.description.refereedTRUE
dc.description.statuspub
dc.eprint.idhttp://eprints.networks.imdea.org/id/eprint/1506


Ficheros en el ítem

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem