On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:24:02AM -0700, Guy Harris wrote: > 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.
A little off-topic: We could implement it as value_string and finally fix bug #594 o/ ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
