Applies the patch and compiled but failed to execute (on Ubuntu)... 14:43:34 Err file about_dlg.c: line 250 (splash_update): assertion failed: (ul_sofar <= ul_count) Aborted (core dumped)
Any ideas? Has someone tried this on Ubuntu? On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:37 AM, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A version of wireshark which is patched to monitor the new mesh > protocol is available at: > > (older, F7 version) > http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-0.99.5.mesh.patch<http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-0.99.5.mesh.patch> > http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm<http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm> > http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-gnome-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm<http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-gnome-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm> > > (current, F8 version) > http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.patch<http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.patch> > http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm<http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm> > http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-gnome-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm<http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-gnome-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm> > > I'm still not seeing RREQ traffic, but I haven't played > around with the new version much. > > Enjoy, > wad > > On Feb 21, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Javier Cardona wrote: > > > On 2/21/08, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks for the reply. What is your estimate of the difficulty > >> in supporting the new mesh format ? > >> > >> We were really hoping to examine the simple mesh traffic > >> carefully next week, and this puts a big crimp in those plans. > > > > It would take me about three hours, including testing, generating the > > patch, etc. I don't have that time this week but may work on it early > > next week. > > > > Javier > > > >> wad > >> > >> > >> On Feb 21, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Javier Cardona wrote: > >> > >>> John, > >>> > >>> The patch was up to date up until we had to change the format of > >>> broadcast traffic. It has not been updated since. Unicast traffic > >>> should still be parsed correctly. Please contact Ronak if you > >>> want us > >>> to work on this. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Javier > >>> > >>> On 2/21/08, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Yeah, but I was hoping not to have to parse each packet > >>>> manually to > >>>> determine if it is carrying data (TCP,UDP,etc.) or Path/Route > >>>> discovery > >>>> traffic. > >>>> > >>>> So nobody has patched wireshark to actually decipher mesh > >>>> traffic ? > >>>> > >>>> wad > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Ricardo Carrano wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Isn't the LLC traffic what you're looking for? > >>>>> I see a lot of multicast traffic on your file, particularly to > >>>>> 01:00:5e:7f:47:31. They are LLC. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> My screen looks like the screen shot you sent when looking at > >>>>> that data. I can see the mesh headers on the pings. > >>>>> > >>>>> Take a look at the data I pointed to. It tried to record a > >>>>> session > >>>>> of a number of laptops collaborating. I set the capture mask > >>>>> to 7 (beacons, link layer, and data). But all I see in wireshark > >>>>> is beacons and LLC traffic. > >>>>> > >>>>> Given your data and screenshot, this is user error not misapplied > >>>>> patch... Still, is there any way to dig deeper into simple mesh > >>>>> traffic ? > >>>>> > >>>>> wad > >>>>> > >>>>> On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Ricardo Carrano wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> <capture.dump> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Javier Cardona > >>> cozybit Inc. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Javier Cardona > > cozybit Inc. > >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
