Re: [WinPcap-users] 60 Byte Minimum Packet, really?

2004-08-24 Thread Guy Harris
On Aug 24, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Rob Henningsgard wrote: No it isn't. I'm sniffing an 802.11 link between an XP laptop and a Linksys WRT54G wireless router, using a third machine with an 802.11 card. OK, so there aren't any Ethernets involved, so the 60-byte padding isn't required. (802.11 drivers o

Re: [WinPcap-users] 60 Byte Minimum Packet, really?

2004-08-24 Thread Rob Henningsgard
>> can sniff the following ICMP echo request packet, correctly reporting its >> length as 47 bytes... >Is that a packet being transmitted by the machine running Ethereal? No it isn't. I'm sniffing an 802.11 link between an XP laptop and a Linksys WRT54G wireless router, using a third machine

Re: [WinPcap-users] 60 Byte Minimum Packet, really?

2004-08-24 Thread Guy Harris
Rob Henningsgard wrote: Can anyone tell me why Ethereal running with the latest WinPCap beta can sniff the following ICMP echo request packet, correctly reporting its length as 47 bytes... Is that a packet being transmitted by the machine running Ethereal? If so, note that Ethereal is *NOT* captu

Re: [WinPcap-users] 60 Byte Minimum Packet, really?

2004-08-24 Thread David Rodriguez
2004 10:42 AM Subject: [WinPcap-users] 60 Byte Minimum Packet, really? > Greetings, > > Can anyone tell me why Ethereal running with the latest WinPCap beta > can sniff the following ICMP echo request packet, correctly

[WinPcap-users] 60 Byte Minimum Packet, really?

2004-08-24 Thread Rob Henningsgard
Greetings, Can anyone tell me why Ethereal running with the latest WinPCap beta can sniff the following ICMP echo request packet, correctly reporting its length as 47 bytes... - Frame 63 (47 bytes on wire, 47 bytes captured)