My first thought would be to keep it simple and use a tag per address. Plenty of tag namespace.
Den tors 20 juni 2024 11:35Mauro Levra <mauro.le...@viavisolutions.com> skrev: > > Instead of dedicating a bit to the enterprise flag, we could also > > define a specific tag for the IANA-PEN, then the enterprise number > > itself followed by its private payload. This way we keep the full > > range of value tags at the cost of 2 extra bytes per packet. > > Thank you, Pascal, for the suggestion, it is a huge improvement on my > previous proposal. > > > Not against the suggestion per se but isn't it better that you write > > an MR including the new tags you need so that Wireshark can read your > > files? > > Yes, Anders, it is better. > Today, I am only interested in adding the ECGI (E-UTRAN Cell Global > Identifier), but reserving it a whole tag sounds a little shortsighted. > I am thinking about an "LTE identities" tag with a dynamic structure > inside, and I wonder: what is your opinion on nesting TLV structures? > > Regards, > > Mauro
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
