I am still working on the subject, but I think it will not be a new
WTAP_ENCAP.
I tried to introduce a kind of extension for the linktype to give more
information, like FCS presence.
Concerning the different formats stored in the ERF record with type
MC_HDLC, I have no other details.
Personnally, I only work with MTP2 frames, so I did implement this type
only.
But you are right, there could be other kind of protocol. So I suppose
somebody else will have to introduce the same mechanism with getenv(), as
it was done for ATM. But currently, I am not able to do it , I do not know
what should be implemented.
Regards
Florent
Jeff Morriss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Developer support
list for Wireshark
m>
<[email protected]>
Sent by: cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev]
Patch to decode ERF type 5 record
reshark.org
18/02/2007 12:33
Please respond to
Developer support list
for Wireshark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, the ERF type 5 record has a different header than the PCAP header,
but
> MTP2 part is not affected.
> In fact, the MTP2 (FCS) is not specific to the ERF format, I would say,
> MTP2 (FCS) is the standart MTP2, but the checksums are present in the 2
> last bytes of the frame.
>
> I could use a new DLT, but this would be to show the additional
> informations given in the ERF type 5 header (like a kind of timeslot
> information, etc)
In fact I didn't mean use a new DLT value but rather a different
WTAP_ENCAP value. E.g., here:
> + case TYPE_MC_HDLC:
> + wtap_encap = WTAP_ENCAP_MTP2;
> + break;
it could be WTAP_ENCAP_MTP2_WITH_FCS (were that to exist) so the MTP2
dissector could automatically know if the FCS is there or not.
Anyway, I read a little bit about this file format and it seems to just
be a place holder for anything in HDLC, not just MTP2.
For ATM stored in ERF files wiretap uses 'getenv()' to tell which
WTAP_ENCAP should be used. If/when there's a WTAP_ENCAP_MTP2_WITH_FCS,
(or any other HDLC protocol stored in that file format) I guess that
method could be used for HDLC, too.
Anyway, I checked in your patch (rev 20838).
_______________________________________________
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
