On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Stephen Fisher wrote: > It still has useful matches including, but not limited to: > > ssh (22) > domain (53) > http (80) > microsoft-ds (445) > router (520) <- (I know, scary RIP...)
Note that we have dissectors for all of those (and that the names aren't the protocol names, e.g. "domain" rather than "DNS", "microsoft-ds" rather than "SMB", "router" rather than "RIP"). The issues are probably mostly with the protocols not used enough to have Wireshark dissectors. Perhaps we should, instead, have our own table of port numbers->protocol names. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
