Sake Blok wrote: > > I think it *is* a cisco bug... > > I tried to open the bug-tracker, but it seems to be offline at > the moment. I think you should open a case with the Cisco-TAC > for this issue. Feel free to use my analysis in the report. > (if my assumptions on addresses were correct of course) >
Frank Bulk wrote (in a previous EMail) > I used bittwiste to remove the first 12 bytes of the attached packet > capture that included a variety of traffic, and you'll see that some > packets are fine, but others, such as 4, 7, 8, etc are not. > Can anyone make sense of it? On additional note: Looking at the packets in the longer capture it appears to me that some are messed up in different ways from the first. In addition there are a few packets which seem to have had all the PPOE stuff stripped so that they look like good packets in the original capture. _______________________________________________ Wireshark-users mailing list Wireshark-users@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
