RFC 3489:STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram ...
RFC-Ref

firewall


Click on the red underlined text to get to the source

... proxy [10]) to control a NAT (or firewall), in order to obtain NAT bindings ...
... MIDCOM requires upgrades to existing NAT and firewalls, in addition to application components. Complete upgrades of these NAT and firewall ...
... firewalls, in addition to application components. Complete upgrades of these NAT and firewall products will take a long time, potentially years. This is due, in part, to the fact that the deployers of NAT ...
... years. This is due, in part, to the fact that the deployers of NAT and firewalls are not the same people who are deploying and using applications. As a result, the incentive to upgrade these devices will be low in many cases. Consider, for example, an airport ...


... port. This would allow a firewall admin to open the STUN port, so hosts ...
... This is useful for determining whether the client is behind a firewall, and for applications that have separated control and data components. See Section 10.3 for more details. The CHANGE-REQUEST attribute is also optional. Whether it is present depends on what ...


... Internet o Firewall that blocks UDP ...
... UDP o Firewall that allows UDP out, and responses have to come back to the source of the request (like a symmetric NAT ...
... NAT, but no translation. We call this a symmetric UDP Firewall) o Full-cone NAT ...
... client knows that it has open access to the Internet (or, at least, its behind a firewall that behaves like a full-cone NAT, but without the translation). If no response ...
... is received, the client knows its behind a symmetric UDP firewall. In the event that the IP address ...
... | Test | UDP <---/Resp\ | II | Firewall \ ? / +--------+ \ / | \/ ...



Google
Web
RFC-Ref