Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful?
From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:24:02 -0700
On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Stephen Fisher wrote:
It still has useful matches including, but not limited to: ssh (22) domain (53) http (80) microsoft-ds (445) router (520) <- (I know, scary RIP...)
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. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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)