Hi I'm also using the packet API instead of pcap. The reason for Jens might be (for me it is) performance. The more API layers it has to go through, the slower the code. This is critical for low usage CPU (background) applications that must capture live traffic, with repetitive calls to e.g. PacketReceivePacket( ). It is a fact that one must cope with the NPF_ and Packet_ , and the ASCII/Unicode in PacketGetAdapterNames( ) stuff... and the PacketGetVersion( ) format changes...but that's life.
Keep up the good work with Winpcap! Namely WAN support ! Pedro Lucas > Why don't to migrate to the pcap API? I know this would be a big change for > your code, but the pcap API is more stable, while the packet API is subject > to change from time to time (in fact I suppose you had to modify some stuff > in your code to work with 3.1 beta, in particular regarding the > PacketGetAdapterNames() API). > > Have a nice day > GV > ================================================================== This is the WinPcap users list. It is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To unsubscribe use mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==================================================================
