IPv6 and forensic requests

Hi All,

we are implementing IPv6 only infrastructure.

For IPv4 access, we using tayga for 6to4 translation and then CGN for NAT.

There is a number of ways for Linux based NAT to store information for future forensic requests (i.e. "who was it cracking that website?").

But what about 6to4 translators, as tayga? I believe there should be well-known patches or solutions. The aim is to have what /64 (not even /128) was translated to what IPv4 at the requested time.

Is there any?

Do you really mean 6to4 or NAT64? Totally different things ...

If that's the case, I will suggest you go for Jool instead of Tayga.

Also, if you want the customers are able to use old IPv4 apps and devices, NAT64 is not sufficient, you need also CLAT at the customer premises (so they can run 464XLAT).


-----Mensaje original-----

Hello Jordi,

thank you, I will take a look on Jool!

Exactly CLAT was the issue.

First, I thought to provide a /128 to every mobile, and then do a static 6to4 to certain public IPv4. But it seems mobile need a /64, and it uses a lot of random IPv6 inside assigned /64, several addresses together at each time, CLAT uses the most of it (on Android). So direct translation 6->public4 is impossible.

10.02.19 15:51, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ пише:

You want this to log the bindings through the nat64


Then you cross reference that with the /64 that is assigned to the UE in the CDR

When doing lookups of this data, only look at the first 64 bits. That is all that matters and is unique to the UE. The last 64 bits in mobile is just noise from a Lawful Intercept and logging perspective.

Well, if it is mobile, then definitively you should use /64 for every PDP context, and clearly is NAT64.

In this case, you don't need to take care about the CLAT part, just look at the /64 prefix for the logging.

Make sure to talk about stateful NAT64 ... otherwise you create lot of confusion.

You've some deployment hints at

Also, google for some of my IPv6-only tutorials (last RIPE meeting, APNIC meeting, etc., there are even videos of them).


-----Mensaje original-----

Great, thank you!

Did you manage to whitelist APN at Apple so iOS devices can use it too?

10.02.19 20:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ пише:

Apple doesn't use CLAT, because apps should support IPv6-only since a couple of year ago.

If they don't something "close" to a CLAT is done by RFC8305.

If is doing tethering, then the CLAT is done towards the tethered devices.


-----Mensaje original-----