Talk:STUN

Commercial Implementations
Is there a possibility to add links to a commercial implementation for a general purpose STUN client and server in the implementations section? (Tsahi Levent-Levi 06:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Request for diagram changes/explanation
I would like to request the diagram be changed or have further explanation. In particular for the boxes labeled "Request echo from same/different address, same/different port" it would be nice to have an explanation on what this means. Does this mean that endpoint A requests and echo from endpoint B? What is same address, same port and different address, different port mean?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spendleton (talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

This needs a disambiguation page
most users searching for stun are not looking for information about serial tunneling of UDP protocol or whatever... I believe the more common meaning is the dictionary definition. Granted there doesnt need to be an article about stun, but perhaps a link to shock or something. The current page would be of interest to only a techie. see WP:bias 129.64.169.38 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

STUN can also stand for Serial TUNnel. It's a form of IP tunnelling (like GRE or L2TP), not to be confused with Simple Traversal of UDP over NAT). It appears to be a Cisco-specific protocol.

---

Another vote for a disambiguation page. Information on Cisco's STUN/BSTUN can be found Cisco STUN. This technology also plays in with SDLC. Ahbanks 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

--

Another vote from me. --Treekids 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

List requested
It would be nice to provide example of STUN-friendly implementations or, even better, list what kind of NAT each implementation is. (eg. is linux >= 2.4 a simmetric NAT?)
 * not had time to fully experiment but i get the feeling linux 2.4.x is somewhere between a restricted port code and a symetric. Afaict it will look like a restricted port cone normally but will start behaving in ways more like a symetric under certain conditions such as two apps behind the NAT using the same local port. Never got round to testing this though its just suspicion based on other things i've noticed about linux as a nat. Plugwash 20:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks
Been trying to comprehend how gtalk does p2p, and now it finally is beginning to make sense. Wikipedia rawks.--Waxmop 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed UDP Hole Punching Article Merge
It seemed like the whole article on UDP Hole Punching was a somewhat weak recapitulation of the information in this article. From my perspective, it doesn't make sense to have two articles on the same concept -- even if the name is slightly different, but it may be nice to keep some of the information. So, I'll start off this proposal to merge the UDP Hole Punching article into this article...

Pg8p 10:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

- Absolutely not. One is a general technique and the other is a specific algorithm. Or more eplicitly: there exist hole-punching algorithms besides the specific one published as STUN. --Treekids 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to confirm the full form of STUN
Wikipedia says STUN as Session Traversal Utilities for NAT. But in other sources it is Simple Traversal of Udp (user Datagram Protocol) Through Nat (network Address Translation).

Can someone please confirm?

Also, it would be helpful if someone provides the diagram stating how STUN actually works.

Atul Khanduri (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Atul Khanduri
 * This was explained much better in previous versions of this article. I have repaired the damage and included a better historical account. Kbrose (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Improvements in IPv6?
Is the situation better in IPv6? To what extent? – Aaditya_7  04:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to review External Link
This article explained the STUN server in much better detail < > as compared to this: https://www.callstats.io/blog/what-are-stun-and-turn. The first article goes into much detail on how the STUN protocol works, including how the messages are formed, sent and received. Hence I think it should be considered as an external link in the wikipedia page. --184.145.105.232 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a link directory and we do not host links that are intended to promote things, certainly not marketing materials set up to get someone to buy a company's services. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for possible renaming of the article to "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT"
Similar to Traversal Using Relays around NAT. Or vice versa?