Stop Blaming the Network First: How Network‑Derived Telemetry Changes the Incident Conversation

Anyone who has spent time on a major incident bridge knows how quickly performance issues escalate. What begins as a slow application or intermittent outage soon pulls in multiple teams. More dashboards appear. Meetings get longer. And before long, the same question dominates the conversation:

Is This a Network Problem?

In many organizations, the network becomes the default suspect. Not because it is always at fault, but because it can be difficult to prove otherwise, especially when applications span data centers, public cloud, virtualized infrastructure, and containers.

In my conversations with NetOps, SecOps, and cloud teams around the world, I see the same pattern repeat across enterprises of all sizes: the network gets blamed first, and this is only later cleared, or confirmed, once the evidence is finally available.

When Troubleshooting Lacks Shared Evidence

Performance issues today rarely live in a single place. Applications rely on services distributed across environments. Traffic moves laterally between workloads as often as it moves in and out of the network. Dependencies are layered, and failures rarely announce themselves clearly.

Most organizations already have monitoring and observability tools. These tools provide valuable insight, but they often see only part of the picture. Logs and metrics can indicate symptoms. Flow data can suggest patterns. What’s often missing is the end‑to‑end context needed to confidently identify where a problem starts.

Without a shared source of truth, troubleshooting becomes a process of elimination instead of evidence‑based analysis. Incident bridges turn into debates between teams, each defending their own domain, rather than a focused, collaborative effort to resolve the issue.

Why Adding More Tools Doesn’t Fix the Problem

When gaps appear, the natural response is to deploy additional point products: another APM tool here, another log solution there, a new cloud‑native monitor for that one critical service.

Over time, this creates:

Overlapping tools that each hold a different slice of reality

Inconsistent views of what’s happening across the environment

More people involved in every incident because “their” tool might have the answer

Instead of accelerating resolution, complexity can actually increase the time to insight.

Each team may be looking at different data, drawn from different sources, updated at different intervals. Correlating that information takes time. Root cause analysis slows down. And when incidents linger, the business impact grows—missed SLAs, degraded customer experience, delayed internal workflows.

More tools without a shared data foundation don’t solve the problem. They just give you more places to search during an incident.

The Role of Network‑Derived Telemetry

This is where network‑derived telemetry fundamentally changes how performance issues are investigated.

By observing traffic in motion across physical, virtual, cloud, and containerized environments, network‑derived telemetry provides visibility into what is actually happening between systems—not just what individual components believe is happening. This is a core capability of the Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline: efficiently delivering telemetry (packets, flows, and rich metadata) so teams can understand what’s happening across all data in motion.

When that traffic is transformed into high‑fidelity metadata, teams gain context around the applications involved in each transaction, the protocols and flows they rely on, latency and response times across network and application layers, and errors, retries, or anomalies that may signal early trouble. And importantly, this can be done without requiring additional agents just to capture and share the evidence.

This approach allows teams to answer critical questions with data:

Is latency introduced by the network path or by the application itself?

Are packets being dropped, or are servers overloaded?

Are connection resets caused by infrastructure issues or service failures?

Is DNS behavior contributing to broader application issues?

When everyone works from the same data, conversations change. Assumptions give way to facts, and the network team can quickly demonstrate whether the issue is—or is not—in their domain.

Why You Need to Separate Network Issues from Application Behavior

One of the most effective ways to pinpoint root cause is to compare network round‑trip time (RTT) with application RTT.

In many environments, you’ll see a familiar pattern:

The network remains relatively stable and predictable

Application response time fluctuates dramatically throughout the day

When those two diverge, it’s a strong indicator that the problem is not the transport itself, but what happens after the packets arrive, such as backend processing delays, database contention, or server saturation.

Without this comparison, teams can spend hours (or days) chasing issues along healthy network paths. With it, they can quickly focus on where performance actually degrades.

The same principle applies to other common scenarios:

Connection resets can be traced to specific points in the infrastructure, clarifying whether they originate from a load balancer, firewall, or application tier

Packet loss can be correlated to particular paths, interfaces, or devices, which helps isolate configuration or capacity issues

DNS response times and failures can be identified before they cascade into larger outages that initially show up as “slow application” complaints

In each case, evidence shortens the path to resolution and reduces the back‑and‑forth between teams.

Making Existing Tools More Effective

This isn’t about ripping and replacing the tools you already rely on. It’s about making those tools smarter and more effective by feeding them better data.

Network‑derived telemetry can be delivered to existing performance, observability, and security platforms in formats they already support. When you combine that with optimization techniques such as traffic filtering, sampling, and de-duplication, you can:

Reduce unnecessary load on downstream tools

Improve the signal‑to‑noise ratio in dashboards and alerts

Provide a consistent, shared data foundation across teams

The result is clearer insight, faster troubleshooting, and a better return on your existing investments without adding yet another tool to procure, deploy, and manage.

From a business perspective, this is about protecting both experience and spend: keeping users happy while ensuring that your observability strategy scales with your environment, not against it.

Moving From Reactive to Proactive Operations

Once teams have a unified, network‑derived view of application behavior, they can start to move from firefighting to proactive operations.

By observing trends over time, NetOps and application teams can identify early indicators before users ever feel the impact. For example:

Gradually rising latency between specific services

Increasing retries on certain flows that signal emerging instability

Abnormal traffic patterns that suggest misconfigurations or capacity constraints

These issues are often visible in the traffic long before they surface in user tickets or executive escalations.

This shift from reactive troubleshooting to proactive awareness delivers tangible benefits:

Reduced downtime and fewer major incidents

Shorter incident bridges with more focused participation

Lower operational strain on already‑stretched teams

More constructive cross‑team collaboration, grounded in shared evidence

And perhaps most importantly, it changes the tone of the conversation during performance incidents. Instead of debating fault, teams can rely on data. And in many cases, that evidence shows the network is doing exactly what it should.

Ready to Change the Conversation?

If your teams are still asking “Is it the network?” at every major incident, it may be time to rethink how you collect and share evidence.

The Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline delivers the network‑derived telemetry your tools and teams need to see the complete picture across hybrid and multi‑cloud environments so you can troubleshoot faster, protect user experience, and stop blaming the network first.

LEARN MORE

Watch the Full Webinar:

Is It Always the Network’s Fault? What the Evidence Reveals

CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION

People are talking about this in the Gigamon Community’s Networking group.