On Jun 8, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Dmitry <d-bazhe...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> 08.06.2014 2:17, Guy Harris пишет:
>
>> OK, so all we would need to say on http://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.html
>> would be:
>>
>> LINKTYPE_whatever {number} DLT_whatever Trace data
>> blocks, as specified by Table 3-20 "Trace Data Block Format" in the PICMG
>> HPM.2 specification
>>
>> with "PICMG HPM.2 specification" linking to
>> http://www.picmg.org/v2internal/specifications2.cfm?thetype=One&thebusid=12
>> (that being the closest thing we can provide to a link to the spec)?
>
> Correct.
OK, I've assigned 260 to LINKTYPE_IPMI_HPM_2/DLT_IPMI_HPM_2, with a description
of:
IPMI trace packets, as specified by Table 3-20 "Trace Data Block
Format" in the PICMG HPM.2 specification.
with the link done as specified.
>> Also, are the time stamps in pcap records or pcap-ng packet blocks
>> significant, given that the trace blocks contain their own time stamps?
>
> They would not be significant, if Wireshark did not use them for displaying
> packet times. But, since Wireshark does use them,
As will other programs that read pcap or pcap-ng files and don't treat
LINKTYPE_IPMI_HPM_2 specially (one reason for this registry is to allow other
programs to process whatever pcap/pcap-ng link-layer header types the
developers choose; the goal is to *avoid* tying link-layer header types to
tcpdump or Wireshark or any other program - it should be possible for people to
write code to read or write packets of any given link-layer header type without
ever having to see any tcpdump/Wireshark/etc. code that reads or writes them).
_______________________________________________
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
