Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Searching for packets with incorrect checksums

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 This list is no longer active.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: "Jim Fleming" <jfleming@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:09:24 -0600
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hamish Moffatt" <hamish@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Searching for packets with incorrect checksums


> On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 06:04:40AM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
> > Yes, you are correct, when numbering from 1 and using the OSI layers.
> > It may be better to use names rather than numbers (i.e. Network and Transport).
> 
> Maybe so. The OSI naming/numbering convention seems the most popular
> and there seems little reason to use any other, IMHO. It may not
> always be the most suitable but it is the most universal.
> 
> 

Numbers can be confusing....BTW...that IPv7 Bit that Ethereal does not
display the same in the Hex Dump and the Summary Lines is proposed
as the IPv64 bit.

=======

. Azcorra
   Internet Draft                                      Univ. Carlos III
   Document: draft-azcorra-ipv64-03.txt                       de Madrid
   Expires: June 4, 2002                               December 5, 2001
              Internet Protocol, Version 64 (IPv64) Specification
---------

This may help...
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/
http://www.RepliGate.net

The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4
http://netfilter.samba.org

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!