On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 17:42 -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 10:12:09AM +1100, Darren Reed wrote: > > If this is the case then any and all arguments at PSARC, or wherever > > else, in favour of using something else other than snoop are neutered by > > the above comments. > > > > In other words, I do not want to hear another person from within our > > organisation that we need or want to dump snoop in favour of wireshark > > or something else again - or at least until such time that they have all > > of the problems addressed. > > PSARC has tended to require that snoop be updated whenever > implementations of new protocols are added to Solaris (well, at least > sufficiently low-level protocols). > > The question is: will i-teams get a choice of which to update, > wireshark[*] or snoop? Or will they have to modify the current PSARC > favorite, whichever that is? And which is the current PSARC fave?
2007/334 made snoop effectively obsolete, and the opinion states that ARC members should review projects with the assumption that the long term goal is the removal of snoop. I interpret that as meaning that projects should focus on wireshark. > > [*] Or, rather, ship plugins for wireshark. > > IMO: snoop should have no new development beyond whatever is needed to > keep it working, and it should stay for the reasons given in this thread > -- all new dissectors should be made for wireshark. Yes, that's essentially my opinion as well. -Seb _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
