I posted a bug report and proposed patch for review already: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2423
- Chris -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Feren Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:48 PM To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] services file and port ranges I vote to parse the range. As parsing the range makes it easier to do something I want anyway, I'll post a patch to the bugs list shortly. -Andrew --- "Maynard, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I noticed that IANA lists a few ports in ranges. For example, x11 is > listed as: > x11 6000-6063/tcp X Window System > x11 6000-6063/udp X Window System > > But addr_resolv.c:parse_service_line() currently expects entries in > services(5) format, i.e., a single port only. So, should IANA be > encouraged to change their format to avoid port ranges and comply with > the format specified in services(5)? Or, more likely, should the > parsing of the services file be changed so that a range of ports is > allowed and any port within the range will be returned as the > corresponding service name? > > - Chris > References: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. > > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > -Andrew Feren [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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
