Monitoring Tool | Strengths | Weaknesses | Main features |
---|---|---|---|
SNMP | - Simple usage | - Unsuitable for large networks | Collect information about device and network states described in MIBs using a polling mechanism |
 |  | - Large delays due to polling |  |
 |  | - No authentication |  |
 |  | - High computational demand |  |
NetFlow | - Flexible | - Overload in routers and switches | Protocol for flow analysis that collects and aggregate information in a central server |
 | - Granular and agreggated data collection and analysis | - Limited visibility of traffic |  |
 | - Use of templates | - Proprietary protocol |  |
sFlow | - Open protocol incorporated in devices of different manufacturers | - Messages without encription | Protocol for flow analysis through random sampling of data packets |
 | - Flexible | - Less packet details when compared to NetFlow |  |
 | - Low computational demand | - Accuracy issues when high sampling is required |  |
IPFIX | - Flexible | - Complex multistage process in templating | Evolution of NetFlow which is able to export traffic information from Layer 2 to Layer 7 |
 | - Variable lenght fields | - Delays due to miss template packets |  |
 | - Data types defined by the user |  |  |
 | - Multi-layer packet monitoring |  |  |
OpenFlow | - Open protocol | Â | Â |
 | - Flexible | - Authentication issues | Real-time traffic control and monitoring |
 | - Multi-layer forwarding and monitoring table | - Not available in many commercial network devices |  |
 | - Easy adaptation to new network requirements |  |  |
INT | - Based on P4 | - High network overhead | Reports of network state via the data plane |