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? [*] 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. Nico -- _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
