Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 7806] Enhance to support P2MP-RSVP related TLVs of MPLS OA
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7806
--- Comment #3 from Tomofumi Hayashi <s1061123@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-10-07 06:53:22 PDT ---
Hi Evan,
Thank you for your so-much-quick reply!
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi Tomofumi, thanks for the patch. Two quick questions:
>
> - Why do you register hf_mpls_echo_tlv_fec_rsvp_p2mp_ipv4_ext_tunnel_id as a
> uint32 and then add it to the tree with proto_tree_add_text as an IPv4 address?
> Wouldn't it be easier to just register it as an IPv4 field?
>From RFC, _ext_tunnel_id is described just as "unique identifier", not ip
address,
hence I keep uint32_t.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4875#section-19.1.1
But _ext_tunnel_id depends on address type, i.e. IPv4-rspv has 32bit for ext
tunnel and ipv6 has 128bit as well.
So I will change to ipv4 addr soon and update the patch.
> - There are a few places where you use proto_tree_add_text to display an error
> condition - is there a particular reason you're not using
> expert_add_info_format?
This is why packet-mpls-echo.c uses only proto_tree_add_text() for the error.
I wrote this code looking packet-mpls-echo.c only, so I don't recognize
expert_add_info().
I can rewrite my diff to using expert_add_info(). Should I rewrite it?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.
