On 15/02/22 20:01, Jaap Keuter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2022, at 13:20, João Valverde wrote:
And also, it's not really correct to include IP inside ICMP as IP
bytes, but that's another issue entirely.
Looking at the Protocol Hierarchy statistics, only the ‘top level’
protocols are counted. So,
> On 15 Feb 2022, at 13:20, João Valverde wrote:
>
> And also, it's not really correct to include IP inside ICMP as IP bytes, but
> that's another issue entirely.
Looking at the Protocol Hierarchy statistics, only the ‘top level’ protocols
are counted. So, an IP header in a ICMP packet don’t
On 14/02/22 15:34, João Valverde wrote:
Hi Jaap,
If I understand correctly I think the numbers are correct by design.
When viewing packet details the analysis is almost always on the
protocol header. In this case that's what the size represents and
that's what I would expect.
I don't typ
> -Original Message-
> From: Wireshark-dev On Behalf
> Of João Valverde
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:34 AM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark ;
> Jaap Keuter
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] On building better statistics
>
> I don't
Hi Jaap,
If I understand correctly I think the numbers are correct by design.
When viewing packet details the analysis is almost always on the
protocol header. In this case that's what the size represents and that's
what I would expect.
I don't typically use Protocol Hierarchy statistics bu
