Hi guys! A little errata as regards Roofnet datagrams. The Roofnet payload is a standard IPv4 packet.
Il giorno lun, 18/12/2006 alle 00.31 +0100, Sebastien Tandel ha scritto: > Hi, > > happy to see that my work fit your needs ... but I was myself a > little bit busy these last days (and out of the real world as I was > unable to have an Internet connection :)). I will take a look at it this > monday. > > > Sebastien Tandel > Nicola Arnoldi wrote: > > Ok guys, the dissector Sebastien sent a few messages ago was perfect. > > > > Anyhow, I just can decode the roofnet header, and not the data field > > contained in it. > > > > Can you help me? > > > > Nicola > > > > Il giorno gio, 14/12/2006 alle 13.18 +0100, Nicola Arnoldi ha scritto: > > > >> On lun, 2006-12-11 at 13:01 +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Nicola, > >>> > >>> > >>> I've written the first version of the dissector. It only does not > >>> send data to others dissectors for the moment. > >>> I've ran it against your capture file and checked some packets. I've > >>> seen two roofnet nodes : 5.175.114.207, 5.175.113.111, is it right? > >>> > >>> But ... yes, there is one :) ... see the following > >>> > >>> Obviously, roofnet has several ethernet types. It uses at least 0x0641, > >>> 0x0643, 0x0644 and 0x0645. It seems like if each of these types > >>> identifies one roofnet packet type. > >>> > >>> To what I've seen there are : > >>> - 2 packets 0x0644 identified as data and broadcasted, one for each node. > >>> - 1 packet 0x0645 identified as a reply > >>> - a bunch of 0x0643 packets identified as data ... obviously the TCP > >>> connection > >>> - and 4 packets 0x0641 with a roofnet type of *0* which is not possible > >>> with the definition you provide me > >>> Is it the query type? > >>> > >> The EtherType is modified by the Click router, so don't worry about > >> that. The Hex value would be perfect! > >> > >>> Another thing, looking at the version field. I noticed it was not the > >>> same for all the packets! > >>> 0x0643, 0x0644 and 0x0645 = 12 > >>> and again *0x0641* = 4 > >>> > >>> Furthermore if length data field seems to be correct ... cksum does not > >>> seem to be computed for each frame :-/ > >>> > >> No, the checksum is not yet computed. Roofnet is still in its infancy > >> and our implementation is really ... experimental. > >> > >> A clarification on the 'next' field. > >> 'Next field' is an integer which tells which of the N hops has to be > >> considered the next and is updated at each relaying node. > >> > >> Forward is a link metric in the forward direction on a certain link (you > >> see that this value is present for each link contained in roofnet > >> header). > >> The same happens for rev, which is a forward metric. > >> > >> NOTE THAT THEY ARE NOT IP ADDRESSES > >> > >> NICOLA > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wireshark-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wireshark-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
