On Nov 26, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Anil <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. I will follow the procedure when I have to checkin the
> code (I have not done that as of now).
>
> My question is more about, 'is it right to use another link type to log
> additional information about the packet ?' . The additional information is
> not 'really' another link layer header.
There are plenty of "link-layer header types" that include information that's
not part of a link-layer header; see, for example,
LINKTYPE_IEEE802_11_RADIOTAP, which precedes the 802.11 link-layer header with
a metadata header containing radio information:
http://www.radiotap.org/
___________________________________________________________________________
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
