Why You Should Use Packet Analysis to Complement NetFlow When Monitoring Network Performance
March 20, 2018

Chris Bloom
Savvius

Share this

Most organizations understand that centralized network monitoring is vital to maintaining the health of critical infrastructure and applications. And while solutions using NetFlow undoubtedly help gain perspective into capacity planning, trend analysis, and utilization, they lack the important precision of packet-based analytics tools that provide root-cause analysis for application performance, latency, TCP/IP or VoIP problems. Both monitoring technologies have their advantages and ideal use cases, so let's see how enterprises can maximize existing infrastructure and equipment investments by using packet analytics to complement NetFlow.

Evolution of Network Monitoring Technologies

First up is NetFlow. This is a well-known, well-established standard that provides conversational information about network status. Compared with even older protocols like SNMP, NetFlow offers greater precision, delivering data at intervals of around 1 second, depending on the equipment being monitored. NetFlow also has the advantage when it comes to providing a good global view of a network. This can be extremely helpful when monitoring the network's general health.

Next, let's turn to packed-based analytics. This breed of network monitoring solution delivers a much higher troubleshooting value to NetOps teams thanks to its data granularity and access to raw data. Since it is packet based, it is very precise, and interval times are often as short as a few nanoseconds. On top of that, the data is completely based on the original payload, so it isn't abbreviated or compiled.


What's the Difference Between Flow- and Packet-Based Analytics?

The key benefit of packet-based solutions is that they can provide much more information that can be used in network diagnostics. If there is a problem, the packet-based approach is completely passive, so it doesn't burden the network or interfere with existing operations or services. As you can imagine, this is very important, especially because nobody wants to exacerbate existing problems by piling on more network traffic.

NetFlow data, which typically comes from Layer 3 devices like routers and firewalls, provides good information about traffic volume between devices. But if you need to use multiple ports, NetFlow is at a disadvantage. This is where packet-based analytics come into their own. Packet analysis allows users to drill down and discover information about how the network is behaving, not just whether it's operating well. All of the packets and all of the information is there in the packets, so it's also going to be 100 percent accurate. And the final advantage is that packet-based analysis can be implemented with very little impact on the network, while supporting monitoring and troubleshooting simultaneously.

When it comes to troubleshooting, Flow-based technology is useful only up to Layer 3 (and occasionally Layer 4) so at least we can see where data traffic is being generated. When the NetOps team starts to get trouble tickets about a slow network or a CRM that's unable to save any records (for example), they need to start looking at the root cause. In this scenario, NetFlow would reveal that traffic is going between the client and the server, and that it's running on a specific port. It could also tell you what volume of traffic is produced by each of the clients. In other words, you could verify simple problems like whether the server is up and running and whether the port is operational.

The key here is that NetFlow alone isn't adequate in a modern network setting. It struggles to identify any activity associated with content delivery networks and applications that use multiple TCP or UDP ports. It also has no visibility into the payload or its contents. You may be able to see that a server has an issue, but that's far from definitive.

Take a look at the screenshot below, taken from a real use case. In this situation, a client is unable to get a response from a server, and its task is canceled. By investigating the reason for this problem, the packet-based solution quickly identifies the issue and shows the cause. In the text box at the bottom we see a message: “Your server command (process id 169) was deadlocked with another process and has been chosen as deadlock victim. Re-run your command.” This reference code tells us that the error was generated when two tasks concurrently requested access to the same resource. Armed with this information, the network team quickly determines that the problem is with the application, not the network, and provides the application team with actionable data to directly address the issue.


Packet-based analysis has been designed specifically to reveal the “how” of the network. Rather than being about just the volume of traffic, these solutions expose vital details about performance and application response. Users can compare network latency with application latency. They can see the efficiency of TCP communications on their network. They can evaluate the performance of VoIP and video over the network and determine if these real-time protocols are prioritized correctly. None of this can be achieved with NetFlow or its derivatives.

To help make my point, here are five common questions that can be solved when packet-based analysis is used in tandem with Netflow:

■ Is it the network or the application?

■ Is the issue isolated to a single user, a single server, or the network overall?

■ Are critical applications using network resources efficiently?

■ Is my network correctly configured for unified communications, and are unified communications co-existing with other network transactions?

■ Are critical functions, for example user authentication, failing due to protocol issues?

NetFlow certainly has its place in the network monitoring hierarchy, but its limitations make it less than ideal in many situations. For most network professionals, having access to packet data is a no-brainer and significantly accelerates mean-time-to-resolution (MTTR). The challenge is in learning how to balance the way we use these tools in our approach to network monitoring.

Chris Bloom is Senior Manager of Technical Alliances at Savvius
Share this

The Latest

February 20, 2020

Over 70% of C-Suite decision makers believe business innovation and staff retention are driven by improved visibility into network and application performance, according to Rethink Possible: Visibility and Network Performance – The Pillars of Business Success, a survey
conducted by Riverbed ...

February 19, 2020

Modern enterprises rely upon their IT departments to deliver a seamless digital customer experience. Performance and availability are the foundational stepping stones to delivering that customer experience. Along those lines, this month we released a new research study titled the IT Downtime Detection and Mitigation Report that contains recommendations on how to best prevent, detect or mitigate brownouts and outages, given the context of today’s IT transformation trends ...

February 18, 2020

While Application Performance Management (APM) has become mainstream, with a majority of tech pros using APM tools regularly, there's work to be done to move beyond troubleshooting ...

February 13, 2020

Over the last few decades, IT departments have decreased budgets in part because of recession. As a result, they have are being asked to do more with less. The increase in work has amplified the need for automation ...

February 12, 2020

Many variables must align for optimum APM, and security is certainly among them. I offer the following APM predictions for 2020, which revolve around the reality that we will definitely begin to see much deeper integration of WAN technology on the security front. Look for this integration to take shape in the following ways ...

February 11, 2020

When it comes to growing a successful company, research shows it isn't about getting the most out of employees, but delivering an experience that empowers them to be and do their best. And according to Priming a New Era of Digital Wellness, a new study conducted by Quartz Insights in partnership with Citrix Systems, technology is the secret to doing so ...

February 10, 2020

Only 11% of website decision-makers feel that they have complete insight into the scripts that they use on their websites. However, industry estimates state that about 70% of the code on a website comes from a third-party library or service. Research highlights a clear need to raise awareness of the potential threats associated with the vulnerabilities inherent in third-party code ...

February 06, 2020

The ever-increasing access and speeds offered by today's modern networks offer many advantages to businesses and consumers, but also make the integrity of their performance and security more paramount than ever before. Organizations are struggling to manage the constant fluctuations in network conditions and security threats. This has prompted many to explore how automation can help to streamline network management and security processes ...

February 05, 2020

The demand to deliver a consistently positive and innovative customer experience is something that many companies — more specifically, their DevOps teams — are currently grappling with. While the ability to push out multiple features a week may appear as a great accomplishment for DevOps teams, our survey showed that 82% commonly discover bugs in production ...

February 04, 2020

Ensuring reliable data security is a critical part of Application Performance Management (APM) — or at least it should be. The fact is, as a result of our need for speed, increasingly development teams are confronted with the problem of releasing applications faster without compromising security ...