Paper detail

On-Demand WebRTC Tunneling in Restricted Networks

In this paper we present the implementation of a WebRTC gateway service that can forward ad-hoc RTP data plane traffic from a browser on one local network to a browser on another local network. The advantage compared to the existing IETF STUN (RFC 5389), TURN (RFC 5766) and ICE (RFC 5245) protocols is that it does not require a public host and port mapping for each participating local host, and it works with more restrictive firewall policies. WebRTC implements ICE which combines STUN and TURN probes to automatically find the best connection between two peers who want to communicate. In corporate networks, simple hole punching and NAT traversal techniques typically do not work, e.g. because of symmetric NATs. Dynamic allocation of ports on an external 3rd party relay service is also typically blocked on restricted hosts. In our use case, doctors at hospitals can only access port 80 through the hospital firewall on external machines, and they need to communicate with patients who are typically behind a NAT in a local WiFi network. VPN solutions only work for staff but not between patients and staff. Our solution solves this problem by redirecting all WebRTC traffic through a gateway service on the local network that has a secure tunnel established with a public gateway. The public gateway redirects traffic from multiple concurrent streams securely between local gateway services that connect to it. The local gateways also communicate with browsers on their local network to mimic a direct browser-to-browser connection without having to change the browser runtime. We have demonstrated that this technique works well within the hospital network and arbitrary patient networks, without the need for any individual host configuration. In our evaluation we show that the latency overhead is 18-20 ms for each concurrent stream added to the same gateway service.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.