Abstract

A for RMON

This December 1994 Data Communications lab test, conducted by Kevin Tolly of The Tolly Group and David Newman of Data Communications, evaluated RMON probes and RMON management applications for remote LAN monitoring. The article focused on whether RMON could provide a practical way for network managers to monitor distributed Ethernet segments without relying on constant local packet captures or site visits.

The lab examined both sides of the RMON architecture: standalone or software-based probes that collected remote traffic data, and management applications that interpreted, displayed, and acted on that information. Tested vendors included Armon Networking, Axon Networks, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Network Application Technology, Network General, Solcom Systems, and Wandel & Goltermann. The products were assessed for ease of setup, RMON group support, data capture and decode capabilities, integration with enterprise network-management platforms, alarm and event handling, reporting, traffic-history functions, and probe performance.

The results showed that RMON was ready to become a valuable enterprise monitoring technology, particularly for organizations managing multiple remote Ethernet LANs. The article emphasized that RMON’s value came from gathering traffic statistics, protocol distribution, host and matrix information, alarms, events, and history data directly at the remote segment. This reduced the need to ship raw traffic continuously across the network and gave managers a better view of distributed LAN behavior.

Axon Networks’ LANservant stood out among the RMON probe products. The lab praised its strong probe performance, useful monitoring capabilities, and clean integration with Axon’s LANservant Manager. Hewlett-Packard’s Probeview SNMP for Windows also earned high marks as a management application, particularly for its integration with HP OpenView and its practical presentation of RMON statistics. Armon’s Onsite was also highlighted as a strong product, especially for its customization and ability to work across multiple RMON functions.

The test found important differences among products. Some probes were firmware-based appliances, while others depended on PC hardware and operating-system software. Probe processor speed, memory, connector support, and whether the RMON code resided in firmware or on a hard disk all affected deployment. Management applications also varied in their ability to define global RMON events, share databases with network-management platforms, use network maps, export statistics, decode captured frames, and integrate with systems such as HP OpenView, IBM NetView/6000, SunNet Manager, and Castle Rock SNMPc.

Overall, the article concluded that RMON had earned its place as a serious remote-monitoring technology. The best products could simplify troubleshooting, provide historical visibility into remote LAN behavior, and help managers identify utilization, broadcast, protocol, and host-level problems before they became outages. However, the lab also found that RMON products were not interchangeable. Buyers needed to evaluate both probe capabilities and management software, because effective RMON deployment depended on the combination of accurate data collection, useful analysis, enterprise integration, and clear reporting.

Solutions Tested

Ethernet RMON Probes

Armon Networking — Onsite
Axon Networks — Ethernet LANservant
Hewlett-Packard Network Test Division — LanProbe III Plus
IBM — RMONitor Agent for OS/2
Network Application Technology — Ethermeter/450
Network General — Cornerstone Agent
Solcom Systems — LANrover E+
Wandel & Goltermann Technologies — IDMS 3113 Remote Segment Monitor

RMON Management Applications

Armon Networking — Onsite
Axon Networks — LANservant Manager
Hewlett-Packard — Probeview SNMP
IBM — RMONitor for AIX
Network Application Technology — NMS/100
Network General — Foundation Manager
Solcom Systems — LANmaster
Wandel & Goltermann Technologies — IDMS Manager