Den 8 feb 2016 18:28 skrev "Guy Harris" <g...@alum.mit.edu>: > > On Feb 8, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Anders Broman <a.broma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes, when conversation is set up from say the SDP dissector for the upcoming rtp flow we will not know on which wire it will appear. > > So perhaps the reassembly code should take into account the conversation ID (with conversations not taking the wire ID into account) *and* possibly also the wire ID, with a preference to indicate whether to include the wire ID or not (set the preference when there's routing between wires going on, don't set it if, say, wires are being bundled together for greater bandwidth, or different VLANs are being used for upstream and downstream traffic, or...). > Yes or possibly ignore the higher layer and just say someting like [duplicate on transport ] as seeing multiple application messages my confuse people. That should perhaps be a preference too. ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org ?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
