On Feb 21, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Also, FT_IPv4 and FT_IPv6 are frequently in duplicate fields. Should they >> be/not-be? Display filter input/verification might have issues with it, but >> it seems logical to have generic "foo.src"/"foo.dst"/etc. fields of both >> types. > > The one place where we're doing that with ".src" and ".dst" is in the PGM > dissector; in, for example, a Source Path Message, there's a field specifying > the Address Family Indicator (AFI) for the source address and another > specifying the address, which could be IPv4, IPv6, or, in theory, a number of > other types.
And it's also done in: h245.network, h248.address, mih.mihf_id, openflow_v4.oxm.value, openflow_v5.oxm.value, pflog.saddr, rsip.parameter.address, rsvp.notify_request.notify_node_address_ipv4, sap.originating_source, sflow_245.nexthop, and a bunch in pim. I don't know if it actually works properly as display filters, however, in a capture/file of mixed address families. -hadriel ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
