Home page logo

wireshark logo Wireshark mailing list archives

PIM dissector
From: mmann78 () netscape net
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:04:02 -0400 (EDT)

I was looking at making the PIM dissector more filterable and noticed that it has been labelled a "tunnelling protocol" 
(per revision 827), so that subsequent layers (ie IPv4/IPv6) are branched from within the PIM dissector and not on the 
"main" tree.  Is this (still) standard practice?  Taking the sample capture from the wiki, it just looks "visually off" 
to have the IP and subsequent layers come off of the "PIM options tree".  Perhaps at least a new tree under the PIM 
dissector should be used instead of "options"?  I personally don't see anything wrong with just putting the IP and 
subsequent layers on the main tree (and that code has remained but been #if 0ed out since revision 827).

Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]