[Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:55:33AM -0400, Jason House wrote:
> Well, I started the road to do that...  
> My RAID-0 had a hard drive failure and I've lost the code :(

Welcome to the William N. Joy RAID Club for Programmers....

>   I had gone into the conversations code, and added an extra integer
> field (which would default to 0 when not supplied).

Added it to the conversation_t structure?

> The idea was to
> have taps use a different number for that field, so that a tap could
> maintain it's own conversation data without stepping on the protocol
> dissector or other taps (especially the same tap with possibly different
> display filters...).

So how would that number be used for that purpose?

Another way to do that would be to change the
"conversation_XXX_proto_data" routines to
"conversation_XXX_private_data", and have the "proto" argument become an
ID argument, and have a mechanism by which modules other than protocols
can request an ID number; those numbers would come from the same number
space as the one for protocols and registered fields.

>   The next step was to pull the tcp sequence number analysis out of the
> tcp dissector and have it use its own conversation instead of TCP's
> conversation.

With the scheme I suggested, they could use the same conversation.