Shorten multi-vendor MTTR
Give operations, engineering, vendors, and customers one packet chronology instead of parallel interpretations of counters and logs.
Enterprise packet investigation · Telecommunications
Make complex telecom traffic explain itself.
Investigate service outages, performance degradation, protocol failures, and malicious traffic across mobile core, IMS, signaling, media, charging, and IP transport—with packet evidence every team can inspect.
Charging investigationCOMMAND SUCCESS ≠ SERVICE SUCCESS
01 · Diameter commandResult-Code 2001Top-level request appears successful
02 · Nested MSCCResult-Code 5012Unable to comply inside charging unit
03 · Transport contextTCP ZeroWindowBackpressure overlaps repeated updates
Reviewable conclusion
Preserve the nested failure and transport context; do not collapse the capture into a generic “Diameter success” summary.
Operational value
Reduce expert effort and service-impact time.
Measure cases per month, responder hours, time to useful evidence, ruled-out domains, vendor handoffs, and avoidable service-impact minutes during evaluation.
Protect service availability
Localize failed registration, session setup, charging, call setup, media quality, transport backpressure, and tunnel-path degradation.
Investigate telecom security
Review C2 behavior, covert DNS, east-west movement, scan or flood aggregates, suspicious infrastructure, and configured threat-intelligence matches.
Scale scarce protocol expertise
Turn specialist packet work into reviewable filters, frames, transactions, coverage, and next checks that wider operations teams can use.
Simple value estimate
What could faster evidence be worth?
Use three planning assumptions. Count only incidents where packet investigation is part of the response and only hours you genuinely believe better evidence could remove.
Annual modeled valueIncidents × hours potentially saved × cost or exposure per hour
Hours potentially recovered384 / year
Modeled annual value€3,072,000
Illustrative planning estimate—not a PacketSafari guarantee or customer result. Validate time saved and business impact during an evaluation.
Critical systems and protocol depth
Correlate failures across layers.
These are target investigation surfaces. Available depth depends on capture position, protocol fields, encryption, product profile, and the representative case validated during evaluation.
Voice and IMS
P-CSCF · S-CSCF · SBC · application server · media gatewaySIP · SDP · RTP/RTCP · DiameterWhich dialog branch failed? Did signaling complete? Is poor media caused by loss, jitter, sequence gaps, codec negotiation, or the capture itself?
Mobile core and sessions
AMF/MME · SMF/SGW-C · UPF/PGW-U · gNB/eNBNGAP/S1AP · PFCP · GTP-C/U · SCTPWhere did registration, bearer, session, mobility, or user-plane setup diverge—and which control-plane evidence supports it?
Charging, policy, and identity
OCS · PCRF/PCF · DRA · AAA · subscriber servicesDiameter · RADIUS · DNS · TLSDoes command-level success hide a failed nested result? Is the symptom application logic, peer response, routing, or transport backpressure?
Legacy and interworking
STP · signaling gateway · HLR/HSS interworking · roaming edgeSIGTRAN · SCCP · TCAP · MAP · SCTPCan related transactions, endpoints, timing, and result codes be reconstructed without flattening the trace into generic warnings?
IP transport and service edge
Routers · firewalls · load balancers · DNS · management planeTCP · UDP · BGP · DNS · TLS · SSH · SNMPSeparate loss, reordering, MTU or MSS, receiver constraints, path policy, TLS resets, service wait, and infrastructure anomalies.
Security investigation
Core services · management zones · remote access · internal and external peersNetwork-wide behavioral and signature evidenceCorrelate Suricata-compatible detections, periodic C2, tunnels, lateral paths, aggregate scans or floods, and offline intelligence with packets.
Security and resilience context
Turn the packet record into incident evidence.
EECC network and service security
Article 40 calls for proportionate measures to manage security risk and prevent or minimise incident impact on users and other networks.
EU Directive 2018/1972NIS2 cybersecurity and reporting
National implementation can impose risk-management, incident-handling, continuity, supply-chain, and reporting obligations on covered entities.
ENISA NIS2 overviewSector threat and resilience practice
Telecom security depends on technical context, evidence exchange, response maturity, and service resilience—not alerts without packet-level interpretation.
GSMA T-ISACPacketSafari supports technical investigation and evidence review. It does not certify EECC, NIS2, or other regulatory compliance; applicability depends on jurisdiction, entity classification, and the organization’s controls.
Start with one representative failure