Seems like the DTLs are exactly what I was looking for, didn't know about that until now.
The information that I will sending could me made identical to SocketCAN. Would it be ok to reuse the same DTL as SocketCAN? Doing this I would only need to write a dissector for the higher layer protocol and hook it to SocketCAN in a similar way as CANopen. Thanks, Joakim >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Felix Obenhuber >Sent: den 26 april 2012 17:22 >To: Developer support list for Wireshark >Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Capturing CAN packets > >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Joakim Wiberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> Any suggestions on how we shall encapsulate the CAN frames in Ethernet >> frames to make them show up in Wireshark in a logical way. >> >> The current implementation that's using a OUI in the SNAP header works, but >> is this the preferable way? Is it better to use an unused Ethernet type, or >> something else? > >Can you describe why you choose the way over the NIC and not over pcap? When >you connect your CAN capture code to pcap you can use some DLT as it is done >for USB or SocketCAN etc. >I know it's a mess, that all CAN device manufacturer provide it's own API for >Windows due to the lack of something like SocketCAN. >Felix ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
