[ddutt@xxxxxxxxx]

Hi Guy,

Guy Harris writes:
 > No.  Presumably you've added a new AT_ value to "epan/packet_info.h",
 > for FC addresses, and added code to "col_set_addr()" in
 > "epan/column-utils.c" to handle that new AT_ value.
Of course.

 > I may be reading the FC-FS Draft Standard I got from the T11 site
 > incorrectly, but it sounds as if an Exchange is something like a
 > connection; if so, the OX_ID and RX_ID might be something like port
 > numbers, in which case you could add a new PT_ value to
 > "epan/packet_info.h", put the OX_ID and RX_ID into the "srcport" and
 > "destport" fields of the "packet_info" structure, and add code to
 > "col_set_port()" in "epan/column-utils.c" to handle the new PT_ value.
You understood correctly and yes, I've done what you're suggested already.

 > In a number of cases, those routines are in protocol-specific files,
 > e.g. "atalk-utils.c", "osi-utils.c", and "sna-utils.c"; arguably, the
 > exceptions should be put in "ether-utils.c", "ip-utils.c",
 > "ip6-utils.c", "ipx-utils.c", and "vines-utils.c".  I'd vote for
 > "fc-utils.c".
Agreed and will do so.

 > 
 > BTW, note that I will probably be checking in Don Lee's IP-over-FC
 > support at some point, so the FC dissector would probably call that
 > dissector for RFC 2625 IP-over-FC.
I've added a decoder for IP/FC as well and tested it. I'll let you decide how
to proceed.

Thanks,

Dinesh
-- 
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
                                           - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe