The DOI matches its Crossref record.
UDP NAT and Firewall Puncturing in the Wild
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Based on the EDM NAT prevalence reported by Halkes et al., we expect to encounter approximately 19.6% mixed EDM/EIM peer combinations and 1.2% combinations where both peers are behind EDM NATs.
“Based on the EDM NAT prevalence reported by Halkes et al. [14], we expect to encounter approximately 19.6% mixed EDM/EIM peer combinations and 1.2% combinations where both peers are behind EDM NATs.”
From Large-Scale Measurement of NAT Traversal for the Decentralized Web: A Case Study of DCUtR in IPFS (2026) · cites this paper as Halkes et al. [14]
Halkes et al. observed in 2011 that approximately 11% of their monitored peer cohort were behind EDM NAT devices.
“Halkes et al. [14] observed in 2011 that approxi- mately 11% of their monitored peer cohort were behind EDM NAT devices.”
From Large-Scale Measurement of NAT Traversal for the Decentralized Web: A Case Study of DCUtR in IPFS (2026) · cites this paper as Halkes et al. [14]
The data from Halkes et al. presents limitations due to its age (2011) and relatively small sample size (fewer than 2,000 peers).
“The data from Halkes et al. [14] presents limitations due to its age (2011) and relatively small sample size (fewer than 2,000 peers).”
From Large-Scale Measurement of NAT Traversal for the Decentralized Web: A Case Study of DCUtR in IPFS (2026) · cites this paper as Halkes et al. [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Audet, F., Jennings, C.: Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP. RFC 4787 (Best Current Practice) (January 2007), http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4787.txt · DOI · Paper page
- Biggadike, A., Ferullo, D., Wilson, G., Perrig, A.: NATBLASTER: Establishing TCP connections between hosts behind NATs. In: SIGCOMM Asia Workshop (April 2005)
- Ford, B., Srisuresh, P., Kegel, D.: Peer-to-peer communication across network address translators. In: USENIX 2005 (April 2005)
- Guha, S., Francis, P.: Characterization and measurement of tcp traversal through nats and firewalls. In: Proc. of the 5th ACM SIGCOMM Conf. on Internet Measurement (IMC 2005), Berkeley, CA, October 2005, pp. 199–211 (2005) · DOI
- Hätönen, S., Nyrhinen, A., Eggert, L., Strowes, S., Sarolathi, P., Kajo, M.: An experimental study of home gateway characteristics. In: Proc. of the 10th Internet Measurement Conference (IMC 2010), Melbourne, Australia (November 2010) · DOI
- Liu, Y., Pan, J.: The impact of NAT on BitTorrent-like P2P systems. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P 2009), Seattle, WA, September 2009, pp. 242–251 (2009) · DOI
- Mol, J., Bakker, A., Pouwelse, J., Epema, D., Sips, H.: The design and deployment of a bittorrent live video streaming solution. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int. Symp. on Multimedia (ISM 2009) (December 2009) · DOI
- Noh, J., Baccichet, P., Girod, B.: Experiences with a large-scale deployment of stanford peer-to-peer multicast. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Packet Video Workshop (PV 2009), Seattle, WA, May 2009, pp. 1–9 (2009) · DOI
- Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., Wing, D.: Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN). RFC 5389 (Proposed Standard) (October 2008), http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5389.txt · DOI
- Roverso, R., El-Ansary, S., Haridi, S.: NATCracker: NAT combinations matter. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCN 2009), San Francisco, CA, August 2009, pp. 1–7 (2009) · DOI
- Savage, S., Anderson, T., Aggarwal, A., Becker, D., Cardwell, N., Collins, A., Hoffman, E., Snell, J., Vahdat, A., Voelker, G., Zahorjan, J.: Detour: A case for informed internet routing and transport. IEEE Micro 19(1), 50–59 (1999) · DOI
- Tang, L., Crovella, M.: Virtual landmarks for the internet. In: Proc. of the 3rd ACM SIGCOMM Conf. on Internet Measurement (IMC 2003), Miami Beach, FL, October 2003, pp. 143–152 (2003) · DOI
- Zheng, H., Lua, E.K., Pias, M., Griffin, T.G.: Internet routing policies and round-trip-times. In: Dovrolis, C. (ed.) PAM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3431, pp. 236–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large-Scale Measurement of NAT Traversal for the Decentralized Web: A Case Study of DCUtR in IPFS
Trautwein, D., Ihle, C., Schubotz, M., Breitinger, C., & Gipp, B. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Internet Measurement Conference · doi:10.1145/3777912.3809138
Metadata
- Authors
- Halkes, G., & Pouwelse, J.
- Affiliations
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- ORCID
- Pouwelse, Johan
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- LNCS-6641
- Issue
- Part II
- Pages
- 1-12
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W1580333009
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 1.71
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Peer-to-Peer Network Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Traffic and Congestion Control
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
- Keywords
- NAT traversal, peer-to-peer networks, firewall, measurement study
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
