On 6 November 2012 20:26, Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames...@darkjames.pl> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 12:14:31PM +0000, Alex Bennee wrote: >> We use a fairly simple ATM over Ethernet encapsulation for linking old >> ATM based circuits with modern Ethernet based hardware. > > Googling for 0x8884 I has found that it's already defined as > ETH_P_ATMFATE (full name: Frame-based ATM Transport over Ethernet)
Oh noes, ID clash ;-0 I'm not sure if the choice of ethertype was deliberate, it's lost in the mists of time for the atmoe driver I'm using. > > and there's some specification at > http://www.broadband-forum.org/ftp/pub/approved-specs/af-fbatm-0139.001.pdf > > Is this the same protocol? It looks similar but in our case no. Although the packing is the same FATE adds some additional functionalities. > If yes maybe dissector should be called FATE rather than ATMoE? I suspect a separate FATE dissector would look pretty similar except for the message handling. -- Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/ http://www.half-llama.co.uk ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe