Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 4590] ANCP (Access Node Control Protocol) Dissector
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4590
--- Comment #9 from Aniruddha <aniruddha.a@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-29 10:52:03 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
>
>
> > 3) I have "vim expandtab", and I have space-only indentation, no tabs
> > if there are any specific Wireshark requirements for
> > indentation (or GNU indent with specific options), I can use that.
>
> If you look at the actual indentation used you'll see that there are a few
> lines which have tabs as the indentation.
>
> Also: the first line of the file is
> /* vim: set ts=8 noexpandtab : */
> I'm guessing that maybe this should be removed. (I'm not a vim user so I don't
> know if this line actually has any effect).
>
> Also:
>
> proto_register... and proto_reg_handoff... (and the value_string definitions)
> are indented 8 spaces as opposed to the 4 space indentation of the rest.
>
> Using 4,8,... spaces indentation everyplace will be fine.
>
>
>
> > 5) hf[]: I did not want filtering-on/display-of all the header fields available
> > so, made some empty (""), is there is a different way to accomplish
> > this ?
> >
>
> The way that could be done is to use proto_add_text instead of proto_add_item.
> However, why don't you want to be able to filter on various of the fields ?
> We'd much rather have all fields be filterable.
>
>
>
> > 10) I have verified the statistics, which counter did you feel was incorrect?
> >
> > With the sample capture that I have attached,
> >
> > with the display filter ancp.mtype == 10 in use, we see 25 TCP packets
> > with frame 7 having 2 ANCP packets (1 Syn and 1 SynACK)
> > i.e, 26 Adjacency packets total (1 SynAck not seen in Info column
> > because of 2 packets in same frame)
> >
> > Port Up - 4 (ancp.mtype == 80)
> > Port Down - 2 (ancp.mtype == 81)
> > Port Management - 4 (ancp.mtype == 32)
> >
> > (as shown in the stats)
> >
>
>
> OK: I'm not that familiar with 'stats'. I just tried creating the stats w/o any
> filter. Should that work ?
>
> Trying again I see that I get different results for the stats w/o any filter
> depending upon whether I first create stats with a filter.
>
> Also: The results for the 'no filter' case are different depending upon which
> filter I use first (eg: 'ancp' vs 'ancp.mtype==10').
>
> Also: I think the 'no filter' results are different depending upon whether I
> just close/reopen the capture file or restart wireshark.
>
> Seems fishy ....
Hi Bill,
I did not find sufficient examples for the stats interface, except HTTP.
I was not sure of the case when the stat is run without a filter
(or whether it will even be run without a filter!)
with a filter, it works fine, I had checked.
I have added a check to increment stats only when it is ANCP message
(IS_ANCP_MTYPE()) ; - please see packet-ancp.3.patch attachment.
Now, the stats will be 0 without any filter - is this the expected behavior?
As a last resort - if this whole stats thing is too confusing, I shall
remove it all-together! :(
--
Ani
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
