[Some Support]

Short Version:

To improve eMule we need to know which kind of firewall and routers our users have. In order to gain more reliable statistics on this, i wrote a small test programm, which tests how your firewall or router handles incoming UDP packets. This has nothing to do with the eMule Porttest and even if you have configured your router properly to forward ports and get a HighID with eMule, it will help us if you give this test a run (but only if you have a router or firewall at all). No personal data of any kind is sent and no configuration is needed. Its a matter of seconds The programm will tell you the results and they will be also (anonymously) used for our statistics, so you don't need to post your results here, but you are welcome todo so anyway and maybe telling us which router you used to get those results.
Below is a screenshot how this little test programm looks like:

Download (Version 1.0, 100KB)

More Detailed Version: (will be extended later)
For some recent suggestions, esp from netfinity which deal with improving KAD for LowID users, we will need to know which kind of NAT most users have. For example the suggestion netfinity made will only work with Full Cone NATs, but we have no numbers how common those are. So here we go trying to gather some statistics which will hopefull be of use in the future development of eMule. This programm tries to figure out if you are behind No NAT at all, a Full Cone NAT, a restricted NAT or a "Closed" NAT and if your router is using PAT (Port Address Translation) or not.

For this tasks, it opens two random local UDP ports and sends one request packet from the port X to our server with the IP A. The server will then send 3 answer packets:
The first will come from a different IP (IP B ) and targets a different local port (port Y). If this is received, then most likely you are not behind any NAT at all.
The second will also orginate from IP B, but will target the local port which sent the request packet (port X). If received, you are most likely behind a full cone NAT.
The third and last will be sent from the same IP as the reequest was sent to (IP A) and to the same port (port X). If received then you are most likely behind a restircted NAT.
If no packet was received at all, then either our testserver is down or your firewall / router blocks all incoming UDP packet (closed).
If the internal portnumber differs from the external one, then your Router is using PAT.

After having figured out what case you are, the result is sent back to the server for the statistics.

Frist results:

Quote

Total valid Results: 168
No NAT Results: 21
Full Cone NAT Results: 23
Restricted NAT Results: 117
Closed NAT Results: 7
PAT used: 46 vs. No Pat: 115

[niclights]

Thomson Speedtouch ST585v6sl:

PAT
Restricted Cone NAT

[Atlan[GEDC]]

FritzBox 3170

Sent request packet to the server, waiting for responses (10 seconds)...
Received one of the response packets (ID 3)
Done. Sending result packet.

Here are the results:
- It seems you are behind a Restricted Cone NAT Firewall or Router. From eMule's
Point of View (for LowID Users) this is ok however eMule is currently assuming
this from LowIDs already so there is not that much room for improvement for such
cases

This post has been edited by Atlan[GEDC]: 14 October 2007 - 05:22 PM

[Revol]

Linksys WRT54GL

Restricted Cone NAT

[EvolutionCrazy]

USrobotics 9108 (USR9108)

Restricted Cone NAT

[hypnotoad]

D-Link Wireless G (DIR-301)

Full Cone NAT

[torpon]

Telsey CPVA500 Windows XP Firewall

Sent request packet to the server, waiting for responses (10 seconds)...
Received one of the response packets (ID 3)
Done. Sending result packet.

Here are the results:
- It seems you are behind a Restricted Cone NAT Firewall or Router. From eMule's
Point of View (for LowID Users) this is ok however eMule is currently assuming
this from LowIDs already so there is not that much room for improvement for such
cases

[PacoBell]

Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 (Tomato Firmware v1.10.1188)
VMWare Fusion Version 1.1b1 (57919) NAT
No Windows Firewall

Sent request packet to the server, waiting for responses (10 seconds)...
Received one of the response packets (ID 2)
Received one of the response packets (ID 3)
Done. Sending result packet.

Here are the results:
- Your router/firewall is using Port Address Translation (PAT)
- It seems you are behind a Full Cone NAT Firewall or Router. From eMule's Point
of View (for LowID Users) this is nice and its possible that eMule (esp. KAD) b
ecome better usable for you in upcoming versions

This post has been edited by PacoBell: 14 October 2007 - 08:39 PM

[Acéphale]

Netgear WGT624 V2 (firmware V4.2.11_1.0.1)

It seems you are behind a Full Cone NAT Firewall or Router.

[KastenKopf]

fli4l 3.0.1

Here are the results:
- It seems you are behind a Restricted Cone NAT Firewall or Router.[...]

[leexgx]

Buffalo WHR-G54S / buffalo Air-station TURBO G
all buffalo rotuers use the same Upnp code (looks linux based as well)

Upnp fails in official emule but works in mods (that have had the updated code)
-----------------------------

Sent request packet to the server, waiting for responses (10 seconds)...
Received one of the response packets (ID 3)
Done. Sending result packet.

Here are the results:
- It seems you are behind a Restricted Cone NAT Firewall or Router. From eMule's
Point of View (for LowID Users) this is ok however eMule is currently assuming
this from LowIDs already so there is not that much room for improvement for such
cases
-----------------------------

does this test allso report back what router i am useing as well if so is there any point us reporting in here

This post has been edited by leexgx: 14 October 2007 - 08:32 PM

[PacoBell]

leexgx, on Oct 14 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

- It seems you are behind a Restricted Cone NAT Firewall or Router.

That's kind of surprising, considering you're using pretty much the same hardware I am. Are you using the stock firmware?

Quote

does this test allso report back what router i am useing as well if so is there any point us reporting in here

Some Support, on Oct 14 2007, 05:16 AM, said:

The programm will tell you the results and they will be also (anonymously) used for our statistics, so you don't need to post your results here, but you are welcome todo so anyway and maybe telling us which router you used to get those results.

This post has been edited by PacoBell: 14 October 2007 - 08:41 PM

[leexgx]

fast reading

still get the same response after rebooting the router

why did official not turn on Upnp by default any way in emule as it tells you when it fails as well and tells the user to use port forwarding
(auto connect on start up should allso be ticked Very important if LOW ID)

[jestheonlyone]

speedtouch 530 + jetico firewall v1:
PAT + Full cone NAT

[Andu]

leexgx, on Oct 14 2007, 10:29 PM, said:

Buffalo WHR-G54S / buffalo Air-station TURBO G
all buffalo rotuers use the same Upnp code (looks linux based as well)

Upnp fails in official emule but works in mods (that have had the updated code)
-----------------------------

Sent request packet to the server, waiting for responses (10 seconds)...
Received one of the response packets (ID 3)
Done. Sending result packet.

Here are the results:
- It seems you are behind a Restricted Cone NAT Firewall or Router. From eMule's
Point of View (for LowID Users) this is ok however eMule is currently assuming
this from LowIDs already so there is not that much room for improvement for such
cases
-----------------------------

does this test allso report back what router i am useing as well if so is there any point us reporting in here

Ditto on a T-Com Speedport W701V

[Some Support]

I have put the first statistical results into the topic and will update it by time. It should be noted that most NoNATs are probably not behind a router at all (or using DMZ) and most "Closed" NATs probably didn't unblock the tester in the win firewall or any other local desktop firewalls.

[EvolutionCrazy]

The italian ISP fastweb (the one that have many many ppl with 10mbit/10mbit fibers sharing the same ip address (all ppl inside a Metropolitan Area Network) give as result:

Quote

Here are the results: - Your router/firewall is using Port Address Translation (PAT); - It seems you are behind a Full Cone NAT Firewall or Router. From eMule's Point of View (for LowID Users) this is nice and its possible that eMule (esp. KAD) become better usable for you in upcoming versions

many many many italian users that actually are lowid (and banned on some servers servers).

This post has been edited by EvolutionCrazy: 14 October 2007 - 09:50 PM

[PacoBell]

BTW, there was prior research into this topic already by Cornell University here. While it's certainly not comprehensive, they did manage to sample a wide array of network configurations from a diverse populace. HTH.

This post has been edited by PacoBell: 14 October 2007 - 10:02 PM

[Some Support]

Quote

BTW, there was prior research into this topic alread

Indeed, the topic seems different through, since they care about TCP properties of routers while we need to know the UDP behaviour for KAD. Also a more detailed explanation about the testing subject is missing it seems (date, who, etc). So for Kad Development the statistic results of our test are more reliable.

[PacoBell]

Not sure if you've seen this yet, but there's a nice IETF Internet Draft Standard rererring to UDP NAT behavior discovery. It includes all of the conditions you need to test for (i.e. hairpinning). HTH.

P.S. Related documentation in symmetric NAT traversal

This post has been edited by PacoBell: 14 October 2007 - 11:10 PM