+1 for that idea :)
On 8/18/07, Richard van der Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Francois-Xavier Le Bail wrote: > > > Hi List, > > > > In version 0.99.6 we have, by example : > > Source Destination Protocol Info > > 10.0.0.2 62.210.65.158 TCP 3946 > http [ACK] ... > > > > In version 0.99.7-SVN-22549 we have : > > Source Destination Protocol Info > > 10.0.0.2 62.210.65.158 TCP backupedge > http > > [ACK] ... > > > > The resolution from the new services file from IANA is > > not relevant in such cases with random source port. > > Perhaps this new resolution scheme should be optional. > > Perhaps it should just be more intelligent, and if one port is < 1024 and > the other isn't, just resolve the one less than 1024? > > On the other hand that doesn't solve the problem in the general case. I > guess it would be nice to make a decision based on where the SYN comes > from. > > > -- > Richard van der Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Systems Analyst > Tel: +44 (0) 845 666 7778 > http://www.mxtelecom.com > _______________________________________________ > 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
