On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:34 PM, Mike Morrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also played with this concept a few years ago when working with a > proprietary aggregation protocol. I am not sure if I still have my prototype > code. I seem to remember that features such as filtering were easily broken > and difficult to fix. > > One idea I had was to NOT give the aggregated packets real packet numbers (in > the traditional sense), but give them sub-packet numbers which are displayed > as x.y where x is the aggregation packet where the aggregated packet finishes > and y is the aggregated sub-packet number. Note that his scheme should be > extensible for sub-packets within sub-packets (x.y.z etc). Is there any need to give them packet numbers at all? The top-level tree items can have frame numbers, but the tree items underneath that need not have one. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
