On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Tamazov, Artem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Francesco,
Hi Artem, first of all thanks for making my PW dissection framework better than the original :-) > Recently I've implemented ATM N:1 dissection and get into merge conflict > after SVN merge. > It looks that we have the same plans regarding Wireshark ;) > I mean: > DONE: > - ATM N-to-One Cell Mode (with CW) > - ATM N-to-One Cell Mode (no CW) > TODO: > - ATM One-to-One Cell Mode > - ATM AAL5 SDU Mode > - ATM AAL5 PDU Mode :-) > Well, let's decide how to handle this. > > It first glance, my implementation hase more features related to validation > of packets. yes > Also it supports some old equipment (it has a couple of options for this). I didn't know someone was using CW length/reserved bits with a value != 0, if they use the length to determine if a packet is valid or not they will have some interoperability problems, it is nice that WS is able to highlight it. > Your implementation more extensively uses existing ATM dissector, which is > important. filter for ATM and ATM fields is a MUST, IMHO, given the fact that there are ATM cells within that PW. I had to call the ATM dissector and put part of the work there. This looked to me the more appropriate way to accomplish the task. Any idea from WS people? > For now I am going to look at your ATM PW dissector with more attention. > Also I would like you to look at my code. > Then we can decide how to resolve this situation. > ok no problem > If you agree, I will send my patches to you (I will prepare them so you will > not experience merge conflicts). thanks > What is your opinion? a) re-spin your patch using mine as a base and get good things from both approaches b) revert mine (a part of it, i.e. packet-pw-eth.c is fine as it is now, don't revert packet-atm.c stuff about NNI dissection option because this is fine 'per se') and apply your patch. Any core WS developer opinion? > Regards, > Artem Tamazov// thanks Ciao FF ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
