Mostra el registre d'ítem simple

dc.contributor.authorBujlow, Tomasz
dc.contributor.authorCarela Español, Valentín
dc.contributor.authorBarlet Ros, Pere
dc.contributor.otherUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Departament d'Arquitectura de Computadors
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-17T08:06:15Z
dc.date.available2017-01-17T01:30:12Z
dc.date.created2015-01-15
dc.date.issued2015-01-15
dc.identifier.citationBujlow, T.; Carela, V.; Barlet, P. Independent comparison of popular DPI tools for traffic classification. "Computer networks", 15 Gener 2015, vol. 76, p. 75-89.
dc.identifier.issn1389-1286
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2117/28329
dc.description.abstractDeep Packet Inspection (DPI) is the state-of-the-art technology for traffic classification. According to the conventional wisdom, DPI is the most accurate classification technique. Consequently, most popular products, either commercial or open-source, rely on some sort of DPI for traffic classification. However, the actual performance of DPI is still unclear to the research community, since the lack of public datasets prevent the comparison and reproducibility of their results. This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of 6 well-known DPI tools, which are commonly used in the traffic classification literature. Our study includes 2 commercial products (PACE and NBAR) and 4 open-source tools (OpenDPI, L7-filter, nDPI, and Libprotoident). We studied their performance in various scenarios (including packet and flow truncation) and at different classification levels (application protocol, application and web service). We carefully built a labeled dataset with more than 750 K flows, which contains traffic from popular applications. We used the Volunteer-Based System (VBS), developed at Aalborg University, to guarantee the correct labeling of the dataset. We released this dataset, including full packet payloads, to the research community. We believe this dataset could become a common benchmark for the comparison and validation of network traffic classifiers. Our results present PACE, a commercial tool, as the most accurate solution. Surprisingly, we find that some open-source tools, such as nDPI and Libprotoident, also achieve very high accuracy.
dc.format.extent15 p.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Spain
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/
dc.subjectÀrees temàtiques de la UPC::Enginyeria de la telecomunicació::Telemàtica i xarxes d'ordinadors
dc.subject.lcshTelecommunication -- Traffic -- Management
dc.subject.otherDeep packet inspection
dc.subject.otherPACE
dc.subject.othernDPI
dc.subject.otherLibprotoident
dc.subject.otherNBAR
dc.subject.otherL7-filter
dc.titleIndependent comparison of popular DPI tools for traffic classification
dc.typeArticle
dc.subject.lemacTelecomunicació -- Tràfic -- Gestió
dc.contributor.groupUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya. CBA - Sistemes de Comunicacions i Arquitectures de Banda Ampla
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.comnet.2014.11.001
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.relation.publisherversionhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389128614003909
dc.rights.accessOpen Access
local.identifier.drac15504858
dc.description.versionPostprint (author’s final draft)
local.citation.authorBujlow, T.; Carela, V.; Barlet, P.
local.citation.publicationNameComputer networks
local.citation.volume76
local.citation.startingPage75
local.citation.endingPage89


Fitxers d'aquest items

Thumbnail

Aquest ítem apareix a les col·leccions següents

Mostra el registre d'ítem simple