https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5279
--- Comment #12 from Chris Maynard <christopher.mayn...@gtech.com> 2010-12-22 14:24:58 PST --- (In reply to comment #11) > Well, the whole point of ignoring packets is to prevent them from being > dissected. True. But actually there are other display filters that will cause ignored packets to still be displayed. Most (if not all?) would be due to the various frame.xyz filters, and not necessarily just because of "frame.ignored==1". For example, if a display filter of "frame.number < X" is applied and there are ignored packets somewhere within frames 1-(X-1), then the ignored packets will still be displayed. Or if you're looking at packets within a certain time interval, you might use "frame.time_relative > X && frame.time_relative < Y", but if there are ignored packets within that interval, then they'll still be displayed. You can imagine other similar cases when applying other such frame filters involving frame.length, frame contains, etc. So it's not completely out of the question then that one might be interested in only un-ignoring those frames that match those various frame filters in order to find out what those particular frames are, but still leave any other ignored packets as ignored. There's obviously a very small subset of the overall display filters where ignored packets could still be displayed, so perhaps it's not worth it. Or maybe it is? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-bugs mailing list <wireshark-bugs@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe