On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:55:33AM -0400, Jason House wrote: > Well, I started the road to do that... > My RAID-0 had a hard drive failure and I've lost the code :(
Welcome to the William N. Joy RAID Club for Programmers.... > I had gone into the conversations code, and added an extra integer > field (which would default to 0 when not supplied). Added it to the conversation_t structure? > The idea was to > have taps use a different number for that field, so that a tap could > maintain it's own conversation data without stepping on the protocol > dissector or other taps (especially the same tap with possibly different > display filters...). So how would that number be used for that purpose? Another way to do that would be to change the "conversation_XXX_proto_data" routines to "conversation_XXX_private_data", and have the "proto" argument become an ID argument, and have a mechanism by which modules other than protocols can request an ID number; those numbers would come from the same number space as the one for protocols and registered fields. > The next step was to pull the tcp sequence number analysis out of the > tcp dissector and have it use its own conversation instead of TCP's > conversation. With the scheme I suggested, they could use the same conversation.
