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