https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
Peter Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #22 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 2 merged by Peter Wu:
6lowpan: fix reassembly for forwarded packets
https://code.wireshark.org/review/2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #21 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 2 had a related patch set uploaded by Peter Wu:
6lowpan: fix reassembly for forwarded packets
https://code.wireshark.org/review/2
--
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #20 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 27761 merged by Anders Broman:
6lowpan: fix reassembly for forwarded packets
https://code.wireshark.org/review/27761
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #19 from sau...@locoslab.com ---
Ah, I've missed that. But I don't think that is an issue of 'wrong'
re-assembly. It seems for all frames that are fragments but have not been
re-assembled, e.g., retransmissions, the context for
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #18 from Eduardo Montoya Marín ---
Well, I can't agree that the re-assembly is not incorrect. Those
00:00:00:ff:fe:00:04:01 and 00:00:00:ff:fe:00:00:00 don't look like something
very right to be shown as
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
sau...@locoslab.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sau...@locoslab.com
---
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #16 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 27761 had a related patch set uploaded by Peter Wu:
6lowpan: fix reassembly for forwarded packets
https://code.wireshark.org/review/27761
--
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #15 from Peter Wu ---
(In reply to Peter Wu from comment #14)
> To fix reassembly here, I guess it could incorporate the Mesh Destination
> address in the 32-bit reassembly ID (e.g. "(mesh_dest_id << 16) |
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #14 from Peter Wu ---
This problem is also present when capturing from multiple interfaces on an
Ethernet bridge with TCP/IP packets. In that case, packets are wrongly
identified as TCP
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #13 from Eduardo Montoya Marín ---
(In reply to Peter Wu from comment #12)
> The datagram tag is already used as ID to group fragments for reassembly,
> see "fragment_add_check" in packet-6lowpan.c. The
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #12 from Peter Wu ---
The datagram tag is already used as ID to group fragments for reassembly, see
"fragment_add_check" in packet-6lowpan.c. The datagram size should be the same
for a given tag (unless it
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #11 from Eduardo Montoya Marín ---
The only problem I see when matching the 802.15.4 src/dst addresses is the case
when fragments from the same datagram take different routes, which is a rare
situation
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #10 from Eduardo Montoya Marín ---
Probably this issue hasn't arisen before because most implementations do cache
the fragments until the datagram has fully arrived before forwarding them to
the next hop.
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #9 from Eduardo Montoya Marín ---
That guidance is perfect for the *recipient* of the fragments, the problem
comes for the analyzer of the fragments when multiple hops exist. In that case
the 802.15.4
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #8 from Peter Wu ---
Some guidance from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944#page-12
> The recipient of link fragments SHALL use (1) the sender's 802.15.4
> source address (or the Originator Address if a
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #7 from Peter Wu ---
Ah, that was some crucial information that I missed. In that case, shouldn't
the mesh src/dst addresses be ignored? Then:
- the 802.15.4 src/dst addresses are the link layer addresses
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #6 from Eduardo Montoya Marín ---
The problem here is that the 802.15.4 source and destination are being
overwritten with the mesh header source and destination, which are not the same
when multiple hops
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #5 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 27637 had a related patch set uploaded by Eduardo Montoya Marín:
Remove duplicated spaces
https://code.wireshark.org/review/27637
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #4 from Peter Wu ---
"pinfo->dst" is documented as being either "pinfo->net_dst" (or if that is
missing, "pinfo->dl_dst"). This works well for IP ("net_dst") over Ethernet
("dl_dst") where the lower layer
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Montoya Marín ---
Without patch:
99 81.476524 fd00:db8::ff:fe00:401 → fd00:db8::ff:fe00:0 0x0401 →
0x0400 CoAP0x01 ACK, MID:47368, 2.04 Changed, TKN:5a, /d/dg
100
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
Peter Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #1 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 27630 had a related patch set uploaded by Eduardo Montoya Marín:
dissect_6lowpan_mesh: avoid overwriting src and dst IIDs
23 matches
Mail list logo