https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14700
--- Comment #13 from Eduardo Montoya Marín <emont...@kirale.com> ---
(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 datagram size should be
> the same for a given tag (unless it is reused), so it might not be more
> useful than the datagram tag.
>
> Using mesh originator/destination addresses (when available) seems like a
> good idea. Whether to use it in addition or to replace the 802.15.4
> addresses remains an open question (which you can probably answer better
> than I do).
>
> What I am not sure about, though, is why changing pinfo->dst/src would help
> fixing your original issue. It is not used in the reassembly API
> (epan/reassembly.c), so somehow it is indirectly having some influence
> (perhaps through a "conversation" in the IP dissector?).
Well, maybe my proposed patch is not valid since it might affect other
non-Thread protocols. What I wanted to point out in my previous comment is the
fact that the 6LoWPAN dissector is not taking forwarding into account. My
proposal to solve the wrong reassemblies consists of taking into account the
802.15.4 destination address before assuming several fragments with matching
datagram tag and mesh addresses belong to the same 1-hop datagram.
Maybe a new variable should be added instead of overwriting pinfo->dst, but I
guess I'll leave the coding for someone who is more familiar with the project.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-bugs mailing list <wireshark-bugs@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs
mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
