Hi,
Of course that's why you review the patches! And I haven't said
anything about this review. You, guys, are the "wireshark experts" and
you know better than me the potential side effect(s) of a particular patch.
But I'm sorry to try to glean some additional information because *I*
didn't get to the point with the information I knew
*and* the information *you* gave (what is the exact meaning of more
common part CDP and less common ISIS?). At least Joerg had answered with
more than a "for now? yes." and gave useful information I didn't know
even if it does not entirely fulfill my expectations. CDP may be
partially implemented by a few others vendors than Cisco. The only case
I knew was riverstone which implements a CDP but I think it's not even
able to interoperate with the Cisco one.
Regards,
Sebastien Tandel
Jaap Keuter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
>
>
>> hummmm ... do you meant
>>
>> "Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for ISIS
>> (like TCP/UDP/IP).
>>
>> support added for :
>> - booleans hf_isis_lsp_checksum_good, hf_isis_lsp_checksum_bad in the tree,
>> - information in the info column if bad checksum,
>> - expert info for bad checksum,
>> - color filters update"
>>
>
> That is what he meant.
>
>
>> Read in this context, it seems clear to me. At least it is clear that I
>> haven't updated a rule for OSPF which indicates that a new SPT has been
>> computed.
>>
>
> Very clear.
>
>
>> Anyway, as I said I don't care whether this rule is released ... I am
>> just a little bit circumspect about the reasons and tried to know more.
>>
>
> Thats cool.
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sebastien Tandel
>>
>> Joerg Mayer wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:52:21PM +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am not defending anything here (cause as you said I can change this
>>>> preference rule) but I don't get to the point. CDP is only implemented
>>>> on Cisco routers but there are also Juniper, Hitachi, Alcatel, Nortel,
>>>> 6wind etc... Having Cisco routers does not imply you'll configure CDP.
>>>> Furthermore, you clearly won't if there are others vendors routers in
>>>> your network. Last but not least, CDP does not seem to support IPv6. Do
>>>> you really think it's the best option?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Quite a few other vendors implement at least part of CDP. Also, I
>>> consider it bad style to introduce a change to the existing behaviour
>>> via a harmless reading changelog ("color filters update").
>>>
>
> That's why we review patches before applying them, aren't we?
>
>
>>> ciao
>>> Joerg
>>>
>>>
>
> Thanx,
> Jaap
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
