2004
DOI: 10.17487/rfc3955
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Candidate Protocols for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In 2004 that work produced two RFCs, 'IPFIX Requirements' [3] and 'IPFIX Candidate Evaluation' [4]. The WG began by considering commonly-used (in 2000) flow monitoring systems, choosing not to consider systems that did not handle flows as they are defined above.…”
Section: Ipfix: Architecture and Information Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In 2004 that work produced two RFCs, 'IPFIX Requirements' [3] and 'IPFIX Candidate Evaluation' [4]. The WG began by considering commonly-used (in 2000) flow monitoring systems, choosing not to consider systems that did not handle flows as they are defined above.…”
Section: Ipfix: Architecture and Information Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The protocols evaluated by the WG were CRANE, Diameter, LFAP, NetFlow version 9 and Streaming IPDR. RFC 3955 [4] gives brief summaries for each of them.…”
Section: Ipfix: Architecture and Information Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7) High-availability and resilience -does the language spoken between exporters and collectors make it easier to achieve a high grade-of-service? The main characteristics Cisco's NetFlow and CRANE are given below, for the purposes of comparison, and the reader should please refer to [8] for a detailed analysis of other existing protocols such as DIAMETER, LFAF, and Streaming IPDR. Note: we refer to NetFlow version 9 when we write NetFlow.…”
Section: A Choosing a Flow-export Protocolmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We assume that for each interdomain link, there is a corresponding eBGP session between the local egress router and the remote AS. A TEroute reflector [11,23] centralizes the traffic statistics [36,16,57] as well as the BGP routes from the border routers of the domain. Two solutions can be envisioned to allow the TE-route reflector to know about all external routes known by the border routers.…”
Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%