Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses
From: João Valverde <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:13:13 +0100
On 09/10/2015 09:51 PM, João Valverde wrote:
On 09/10/2015 09:05 PM, Pascal Quantin wrote:Hi, 2015-09-10 13:50 GMT+02:00 João Valverde <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt <mailto:joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt>>: Hi list, I proposed a change[1] to remove the duplication for resolved addresses (not necessarily using that code) in the UI: Src: 192.0.2.1, Dst: 192.0.2.2 Instead of: Src: 192.0.2.1 (192.0.2.1), Dst: 192.0.2.2 (192.0.2.2) This change (rightfully) raised concerns that it would break backward compatibility for scripts parsing this output. Any thoughts on this? Just thinking out loud but maybe 2.0 would be a good opportunity to change this (if indeed it is an improvement)? If I understand the issue correctly I personally don't think this should be a stable interface anyway but of course I'm willing to be corrected on that. Next step after this would be doing the same for port resolution... Regards, João V. [1] https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/10203/ Just a random thought (as I'm far from being a script expert). In case only one of the 2 IP address is resolved, would it be harder to parse? Src: 192.0.2.1, Dst: localhost (127.0.0.1) The "advantage" of current code (whether it is relevant or not is an exercise left to the reader) is that you will always find the IP address (or port number) within parenthesis, whatever your preference configuration. On the other side, it is not really pretty to the eye.Good point. I would take that format, no problem, but it might be worth having an exception in that case (would need to investigate the code feasibility). I personally don't use address resolution (which is not relevant at all to the argument). What I think is relevant is that for long, randomish IPv6 addresses it really starts to get cumbersome for humans to parse. And takes a lot of screen real-estate. Having said that there may be other factors I'm missing, I don't use any automated output parsing either.
Reflecting on what you said makes me think that a much better way to implement this than my proposal would be to remove the duplicate addresses if the preference/settings for address resolution is disabled (for the GUI at least).
Regards, JVCheers, Pascal. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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-request () 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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Remove duplication for resolved addresses João Valverde (Sep 10)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses Pascal Quantin (Sep 10)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses Guy Harris (Sep 10)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses Pascal Quantin (Sep 10)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses Guy Harris (Sep 10)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses Guy Harris (Sep 10)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses João Valverde (Sep 10)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses João Valverde (Sep 10)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses João Valverde (Sep 11)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses João Valverde (Sep 11)
- Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses Pascal Quantin (Sep 10)