Ethereal-dev: Re: [ethereal-dev] Another xdlc bug

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: Olivier Abad <abad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:46:09 +0200
On dim, sep 26, 1999 at 12:41:25 -0500, Gilbert Ramirez wrote:
> If you look at the packet trace I just sent out, you'll see another
> bug in frame 8. N(R) in LLC should be 112, but it's shown as 0.
> 
> The "is_extended" variable was not taken into account for information
> frames. This diff fixes that problem.
> 
> I'm no LLC expert; I'm reading up on it now. The "is_extended" variable
> is also ignored w/regard to the control field for Unnumbered Frames.

According to http://www.acacia-net.com/Clarinet/protocol.htm LLC
Unnumbered frames are not extended. Extended LAPB does the same : it
uses the extended frame structure for Information and Supervisory
frames, but not for Unnumbered frames.

Olivier
-- 
"Benson, you are so free of the ravages of intelligence"
		-- Time Bandits