Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful?
From: Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws () darkjames pl>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:41:48 +0200
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:24:02AM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
Note that we have dissectors for all of those (and that the names aren't the protocol names, e.g. "domain" rather than "DNS", "microsoft-ds" rather than "SMB", "router" rather than "RIP"). The issues are probably mostly with the protocols not used enough to have Wireshark dissectors. Perhaps we should, instead, have our own table of port numbers->protocol names.
A little off-topic: We could implement it as value_string and finally fix bug #594 o/ ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
Current thread:
- Transport name resolution considered harmful? Gerald Combs (Apr 23)
- Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful? Guy Harris (Apr 23)
- Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful? Stephen Fisher (Apr 23)
- Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful? Guy Harris (Apr 23)
- Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful? Jakub Zawadzki (Apr 23)
- Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful? Christopher Maynard (Apr 23)
- Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful? Guy Harris (Apr 23)