On 5/18/07, Sebastien Tandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not too much resources ... simply run for a few passes
>
> tools/fuzztest.sh mip1.cap mip2.cap mip3.cap
Oh, now your question makes sense! I hadn't noticed the script.
The script ran on a test capture for a few thousand passes with
Sebastien Tandel wrote:
>> 3) there will be two additional fields shown, which will be clear
>> (for
>> packets formatted as per the older version of the spec, where those
>> two
>> bits were reserved).
>
> which will be presented as two bits with a semantic and in fact, had
> none for
> 3) there will be two additional fields shown, which will be clear
> (for
> packets formatted as per the older version of the spec, where those
> two
> bits were reserved).
which will be presented as two bits with a semantic and in fact, had
none for the old norm. That's what I wanted
Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> OK. Do you have a mean to distinguish between mip captures from the
> previous norm and the new ones? Or is it really useless?
After the change, this should correctly dissect packets even if they
were formatted as per the older version of the spec.
With the older cod
>> Some quick comments :
>> 1) please use proto_tree_add_item whenever possible. Don't use
>> tvb_get_* if you don't intend to use the retrieved value for another
>> purpose than inserting it in the tree.
>
> Ok. I just used it to convert some multi-byte values to host byte
> order. Is there a
On 5/16/07, Sebastien Tandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some quick comments :
> 1) please use proto_tree_add_item whenever possible. Don't use
> tvb_get_* if you don't intend to use the retrieved value for another
> purpose than inserting it in the tree.
Ok. I just used it to convert
On 5/16/07, Jaap Keuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some additional notes:
>
> + {REGISTRATION_REVOCATION, "Registration Revocation"},
> + {REGISTRATION_REVOCATION, "Registration Revocation Acknowledgement"},
>
> The second one misses _ACKNOWLEDGEMENT in the symbol
Oops, how did I miss
Hi,
Some additional notes:
+ {REGISTRATION_REVOCATION, "Registration Revocation"},
+ {REGISTRATION_REVOCATION, "Registration Revocation Acknowledgement"},
The second one misses _ACKNOWLEDGEMENT in the symbol
{0, NULL},
};
Don't put a comma after the last initializer. It's just poor style
Hi,
Some quick comments :
1) please use proto_tree_add_item whenever possible. Don't use
tvb_get_* if you don't intend to use the retrieved value for another
purpose than inserting it in the tree.
2) Why have you changed the length type of some fields
(icmp.mip.flags, icmp.mip.r, icm
Argh,
Gmail messed up the MIME type of the patch file. Here it is as plain text.
Regards,
Ville
Index: epan/dissectors/packet-mip.c
===
--- epan/dissectors/packet-mip.c(revision 21782)
+++ epan/dissectors/packet-mip.c
Hello,
attached is a patch that adds support for the following RFCs (and RFC-to-be):
RFC 3519 Mobile IP Traversal of Network Address Translation (NAT) Devices
RFC 3543 Registration Revocation in Mobile IPv4
RFC 4433 Mobile IPv4 Dynamic Home Agent (HA) Assignment (including the
not yet publishe
11 matches
Mail list logo
