Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison among main wireless network monitoring tools

From: A survey on data analysis on large-Scale wireless networks: online stream processing, trends, and challenges

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   
  - 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