臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

網路位址轉換(NAT)技術有效地解決IPv4位址不敷使用的問題，但是也因為NAT禁止外部主機主動對NAT內部主機直接建立連線的特性，造成了許多現存的Internet協定和應用，無法在這種架構上順利和對方主機建立連線，如FTP、 Web、 Telnet 這種Client - Server 架構的應用。同樣的，對於近年相當流行的P2P應用也造成應用上的阻礙。
針對這個問題，很多解決技術被討論、提出，如STNUT、TURN、UPnP、IPv6等，但是這些方案，或多或少需要修改現有的應用程式，或增加額外的設備配合，甚至要改變網路協定，這都造成這些方案推行上的困難及成本。本論文提出一個低成本穿透NAT的方法，它不用修改現有的應用程式或協定，甚至不需新增額外的配合裝置。

Network Address Translation (NAT) technology is used to solve the shortage problem of IPv4 address. In general, the NAT has the property of avoiding the external device to access the device located behind the NAT. This induces that the devices located on the both sides of NAT cannot be communication normally based on the existing Internet protocol. Thus, there are many Client-Server applications cannot be operation smoothly under this architecture such as the FTP, Web and Telnet. Moreover, this architecture has been as an obstacle for the most popular current P2P application. Thus, to propose one method to cope with such an issue has been becoming a more important issue currently.
To solve this problem, there are many methods have been proposed for such as STNUT, TURN, UPnP, IPv6 and so on. However, most of these methods require more or less modifications to achieve this goal. Some of these methods might require more budgets and even more on the modification of protocol. Our paper proposes a low cost transparent NAT method. Based on the method, we do not need to modify the program itself and protocol.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
表目次 v
圖目次 vi
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 研究背景 2
2.1 NAT 的分類與運作 2
2.1.1 Full Cone NAT 3
2.1.2 Restricted Cone NAT 4
2.1.3 Port Restricted Cone NAT 6
2.1.4 Symmetric NAT 8
2.1.5 NAT對網路應用造成的問題 10
2.1.6 NAT的穿越問題總結 11
2.2 DDNS 12
第三章 相關研究 13
3.1 STUNT 13
3.2 NATBLASTER 16
3.3 TNT 16
3.4 NAT的穿越方式總結 21
第四章 Low Cost Transparent NAT Traversal 22
4.1 系統設計 22
4.2 系統運作模式 23
第五章 系統驗證及效能比較 27
5.1 系統驗證 27
5.1.1 裝置設備 27
5.1.2 網路拓蹼 30
5.1.3 實作驗證 31
5.2 效能比較 37
5.2.1 效能量測方法 37
5.2.2 效能量測結果 39
第六章 結論及未來工作 41
參考文獻 42

[1]賈文康, Session Initiation Protocol Methodology Handbook SecondEdition, 松崗, 2008, P.8-9
[2]P. Srisuresh and M. Holdrege, IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations. RFC 2663, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1999.
[3]K. Egevang & P. Francis. The IP Network Address Translator (NAT). IETF RFC 1631.
[4]P. Srisuresh & K. Egevang. Traditional IP Network Address Translator. IETF RFC 3022.
[5]Bryan Ford, Pyda Srisuresh and Dan Kegel, Peer-to-Peer Communication Across Network Address Translators, USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2005
[6]M. Holdrege and P. Srisuresh. Protocol Complications with the IP Network Address Translator. RFC 3027, Internet Engineering Task Force, January 2001.
[7]Jeffrey L. Eppinger. TCP connections for P2P apps: A software approach to solving the NAT problem. Technical Report CMUISRI- 05-104, Carnegie Mellon University, January 2005, P.5
[8]RFC 2136: Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE) IETF publication, 1997
[9]J. Rosenberg, J. Weinberger, C. Huitema, and R. Mahy. RFC 3489: STUN – Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators (NATs), Mar. 2003.
[10]Andrew Biggadike, Daniel Ferullo, Geoffrey Wilson, Adrian Perrig,“NATBLASTER: Establishing TCP Connections Between Hosts Behind NATs”, SIGCOMM Asia Workshop Beijing, China, 2005, P.4-9
[11]Hsiang-Kai Liao and Ce-Kuen Shieh,TNT：A Transparent Traversal Method for Connection of Hosts Behind NATs, Department of Electrical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C. June 2007, P.12-18
[12]M. Holdrege and P. Srisuresh. Protocol complications with the IP network address translator, January 2001. RFC 3027.
[13]Salman A. Baset and Henning Schulzrinne, An Analysis of the Skype Peer-to-Peer Internet Telephony Protocol, Department of Computer Science Columbia University, New York NY 10027, September 15, 2004
[14]UPnP Forum. Internet gateway device (IGD) standardized device control protocol, November 2001. http://www.upnp.org/.
[15]J. Rosenberg, R. Mahy and C. Huitema, “Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN)”, October 2003
[16]NAT check. http://midcom-p2p.sourceforge.net/
[17]DDNS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_DNS
[18]P. Srisuresh, J. Kuthan, J. Rosenberg, A. Molitor, and A. Rayhan. Middlebox communication architecture and framework, August 2002. RFC 3303.
[19]Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek, Hari Balakrishnan “Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications”, In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA, August 2001
[20]J. Rosenberg , “Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Methodology for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Multimedia Sessions Establishment Protocols”, raft-ietf-mmusic-ice-04, February 2005
[21]Saikat Guha, Yutaka Takeday, and Paul Francis. NUTSS: A SIP-based approach to UDP and TCP Network Connectivity. In SIGCOMM 2004 Workshops, Aug 2004.
[22]Y. Rekhter, B. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot, and E. Lear. Address Allocation for Private Internets. RFC 1918, Internet Engineering Task Force, February 1996.