Robert Hogan wrote: > I'm most of the way (I hope) through a tn3270 dissector. However I'm not > sure of the most acceptable way of doing a couple of things: > > - Should I just make TN3270 a sub-dissector of telnet? So users > select 'decode as telnet' and get the tn3270 dissected implicitly? Or > should it have a separate 'decode as' entry? If the latter, I'm not sure > how I can call telnet as a 'super-dissector' or alternatively, avoid > duplicating code.
Well, TN3270 is really 3270-over-telnet so I'd think the former was better. > - The best way of recognizing a tn3270 session is through the 'terminal > type' telnet option at session negotiation. Browsing through other > dissector code I can't find a canonical way of storing information about a > given stream, other than possibly misusing the conversation api. I'm sure > I'm missing a trick. What is the standard way of recognizing that a packet > is from a stream previously identified as requiring a specific > sub-dissector? I think the only (and best) way to do that is to store the info in a conversation structure. I've always thought the purpose of conversations was to store info for later (subsequent packet) use. (Then again: I've never used them.) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
