Hi,
The problem with using Signalling Point Codes as node identities is that you lose information
on IP level. If you had the following setup:
MTP3 speaker ------------- Router ---------------- MTP3 speaker
the graph would be confusing. Of course it is also confusing in your case, but it seems somehow
less usual. Maybe implementing both options would be useful; however, this is not trivial,
because as far as I remember -I don't have my PC right now- SPCs are not among the addresses
supported by ethereal as such. I'll have a look at it.
Regards,
Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: ethereal-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ethereal-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: lunes, 28 de febrero de 2005 18:32
To: Ethereal development
Subject: [Ethereal-dev] VoIP calls analysis and text2pcap
Hello all,
I'm using text2pcap to create a pcap compatible file from hexadecimal
traces (MTP2 traces, including ISUP and TCAP payload). By doing so, IP
and SCTP headers are "hardcoded" by text2pcap.
If I want to graph the calls with the great new "VoIP call analysis"
feature, the ladder is built using source and destination IP address. So
all arrows are going in the same direction.
If the call is an ISUP call, wouldn't it be better to use MTP3's
Destination Point Code?
More generally speaking, shall we identify the nodes in the graph with
what identify a node with respect to the protocol (Point Code + Network
Indicator for ISUP), or only with the IP address?
I attached such a tcpdump (ISUP) to this email.
Olivier.
