Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 10:12:09AM +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
If this is the case then any and all arguments at PSARC, or wherever
else, in favour of using something else other than snoop are neutered by
the above comments.
In other words, I do not want to hear another person from within our
organisation that we need or want to dump snoop in favour of wireshark
or something else again - or at least until such time that they have all
of the problems addressed.
PSARC has tended to require that snoop be updated whenever
implementations of new protocols are added to Solaris (well, at least
sufficiently low-level protocols).
The question is: will i-teams get a choice of which to update,
wireshark[*] or snoop? Or will they have to modify the current PSARC
favorite, whichever that is? And which is the current PSARC fave?
[*] Or, rather, ship plugins for wireshark.
IMO: snoop should have no new development beyond whatever is needed to
keep it working, and it should stay for the reasons given in this thread
-- all new dissectors should be made for wireshark.
I think fundamentally ARC has agreed with this, but in the past it was
somewhat confounded by the fact that wireshark had not yet integrated.
I've not checked lately -- is wireshark integrated yet?
There's also the question of Solaris 10. If we don't have wireshark for
Solaris 10, then updates to snoop for new protocols made in S10 will
probably also need to be made for Nevada.
At the end of the day, this might mean that snoop isn't really quite in
the same level of maintenance mode that people would like -- they might
have to update *both* snoop and wireshark.
- Garrett
Nico
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
