Hi guys!
A little errata as regards Roofnet datagrams.
The Roofnet payload is a standard IPv4 packet.
Il giorno lun, 18/12/2006 alle 00.31 +0100, Sebastien Tandel ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> happy to see that my work fit your needs ... but I was myself a
> little bit busy these last days (and out of the real world as I was
> unable to have an Internet connection :)). I will take a look at it this
> monday.
>
>
> Sebastien Tandel
> Nicola Arnoldi wrote:
> > Ok guys, the dissector Sebastien sent a few messages ago was perfect.
> >
> > Anyhow, I just can decode the roofnet header, and not the data field
> > contained in it.
> >
> > Can you help me?
> >
> > Nicola
> >
> > Il giorno gio, 14/12/2006 alle 13.18 +0100, Nicola Arnoldi ha scritto:
> >
> >> On lun, 2006-12-11 at 13:01 +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Nicola,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I've written the first version of the dissector. It only does not
> >>> send data to others dissectors for the moment.
> >>> I've ran it against your capture file and checked some packets. I've
> >>> seen two roofnet nodes : 5.175.114.207, 5.175.113.111, is it right?
> >>>
> >>> But ... yes, there is one :) ... see the following
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, roofnet has several ethernet types. It uses at least 0x0641,
> >>> 0x0643, 0x0644 and 0x0645. It seems like if each of these types
> >>> identifies one roofnet packet type.
> >>>
> >>> To what I've seen there are :
> >>> - 2 packets 0x0644 identified as data and broadcasted, one for each node.
> >>> - 1 packet 0x0645 identified as a reply
> >>> - a bunch of 0x0643 packets identified as data ... obviously the TCP
> >>> connection
> >>> - and 4 packets 0x0641 with a roofnet type of *0* which is not possible
> >>> with the definition you provide me
> >>> Is it the query type?
> >>>
> >> The EtherType is modified by the Click router, so don't worry about
> >> that. The Hex value would be perfect!
> >>
> >>> Another thing, looking at the version field. I noticed it was not the
> >>> same for all the packets!
> >>> 0x0643, 0x0644 and 0x0645 = 12
> >>> and again *0x0641* = 4
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore if length data field seems to be correct ... cksum does not
> >>> seem to be computed for each frame :-/
> >>>
> >> No, the checksum is not yet computed. Roofnet is still in its infancy
> >> and our implementation is really ... experimental.
> >>
> >> A clarification on the 'next' field.
> >> 'Next field' is an integer which tells which of the N hops has to be
> >> considered the next and is updated at each relaying node.
> >>
> >> Forward is a link metric in the forward direction on a certain link (you
> >> see that this value is present for each link contained in roofnet
> >> header).
> >> The same happens for rev, which is a forward metric.
> >>
> >> NOTE THAT THEY ARE NOT IP ADDRESSES
> >>
> >> NICOLA
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> >> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
