I propose to change the DLT_PRISM_HEADER semantics. I am trying to
identify the stakeholders in such a change, to find out what they think.
I figure some of them read this list.
For DLT_PRISM_HEADER, libpcap expects a header that is a whopping 144
bytes long. It does not resemble any header a Prism radio will give,
so the name DLT_PRISM_HEADER for it is misleading.
Examining linux-wlan-ng and ethereal, the header actually consists of
length-type-value (LTV) tuples for received signal strength, PHY type,
and other radio parameters. This seems like a stab at a generic 802.11
radio header. Why, then, is it not called DLT_IEEE802_11_RADIO, for
example? The former name is misleading.
I ask because I am adding to NetBSD a DLT whose header contains the
portions of the Prism header preceding the IEEE802.11 header. I have
tentatively called it DLT_SHORT_PRISM_HEADER, to avoid clashing with
DLT_PRISM_HEADER, but I prefer to rename the old DLT_PRISM_HEADER
to DLT_IEEE802_11_RADIO, and to call the Prism-specific header
DLT_PRISM_HEADER.
Your thoughts?
Dave
--
David Young OJC Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering from the Right Brain
Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
-
This is the TCPDUMP workers list. It is archived at
http://www.tcpdump.org/lists/workers/index.html
To unsubscribe use mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe
