Ricardo, On 2/25/08, Ricardo Carrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
Oh, I just commented out that assertion and it all worked with a fuss: (lt-wireshark:32429): Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_progress_set_percentage: assertion `percentage >= 0 && percentage <= 1.0' failed Who cares if the progress bar goes beyond 100%... :) Javier > 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/~wad/wireshark-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm > > > http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/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/~wad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm > > > http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/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. > > > > > > -- Javier Cardona cozybit Inc. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
