Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes?
From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 17:23:05 -0700
On Aug 19, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe () gmail com> wrote:
I have a change up for review that introduces a new type, FT_OUI. It works. However, the big question is that it changes the current practice from the OUI being an INT24 to being BYTES. This breaks backward compatibility I imagine. Is this a big issue?
Some issues I see are: 1) Filter expressions that compare an OUI field against a 24-bit integral value might become invalid - but you might be able to make that work by allowing FT_OUI be represented, in filters, either as an integral value or as 3 octets (allowing 0C0102, 0C:01:02, etc.). 2) OUIs are used in the 802.2 LLC dissector when processing the SNAP header; a dissector can register a field to use for the PID for a given OUI, and a dissector table to be used for the PID's value, passing llc_add_oui() an integral value for the OUI. We could continue to allow that, and just convert the 3-octet value to an integral value in the 802.2 dissector and use that integral value to look up the registered information. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes? Richard Sharpe (Aug 19)
- Re: Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes? Guy Harris (Aug 19)
- Re: Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes? Guy Harris (Aug 19)
- Re: Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes? Guy Harris (Aug 19)