On Aug 22, 2008, at 6:26 AM, Martin Corraine (mcorrain) wrote:
> The spec describes the value as a 96-bit identifier that can range
> from
> 0 to 2^96 - 1. It serves as an id to track messages. So I think it's
> just a very large unsigned number. When you say opaque value, what do
> you mean by
ECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guy Harris
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:35 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] 12 byte number
On Aug 20, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Martin Corraine (mcorrain) wrote:
> I'm working on another dissector and ran i
Hello Guy,
Well, this was an opaque value, so this worked for me. As you said 2^96
things are a lot of things, so I guess this could get him started somewhere.
Thanx,
Jaap
Guy Harris schreef:
> On Aug 20, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Jaap Keuter wrote:
>
>
>> I've run into the same issue a while ago.
On Aug 20, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> I've run into the same issue a while ago.
Was your multi-byte quantity also an integer rather than an opaque
value or a value interpreted in some other fashion?
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wiresha
On Aug 20, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Martin Corraine (mcorrain) wrote:
> I'm working on another dissector and ran into a problem. As far as I
> can see in the readme there is no way to fetch a 12 byte unsigned
> number.
So it's a value to be interpreted as a nonnegative integer (so a value
of 0x0
Hi,
I've run into the same issue a while ago. I've addressed it with FT_BYTES. This
resulted in a searchable field like so:
{ &hf_twelve_bytes,
{ "TB", "myproto.tb",
FT_BYTES, BASE_NONE,
NULL, 0x0,
NULL, HFILL }},
proto_tree_add_item(proto_tree, hf_t
Hello,
I'm working on another dissector and ran into a problem. As far as I can
see in the readme there is no way to fetch a 12 byte unsigned number.
Could I use proto_tree_add_bytes(...). If I do use this, would the value
be searchable? (I have no way to test this as of yet due to lack of
pcap)
