Ethereal-users: R: [Ethereal-users] May be a small visualization bug in 10.6 version

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: "Camp0s" <camp0s@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:01:14 +0100
Hy, i'm not talking about absolute seq/ack number, i'm referring that
ethereal doesn't count that frame:

Into the raw data for the fist and second packet:
For the 1st packet: 97 18 cd f6
For the second packet: 97 18 cd f7

The difference is "one", but ethereal show:

*captured*
1   0.000000  10.0.0.50  10.0.0.2    TCP      1057 > 7777 [SYN] Seq=0 Ack=0
2   0.000077  10.0.0.2  10.0.0.50    TCP      7777 > 1057 [RST, ACK] Seq=0
Ack=0

This is wrong, the "Syn" has to be counted as "one" byte to be ACKed... And
it should look like:

*simulated*
10.0.0.50 --> 10.0.0.2  1057-->7777 [SYN]      SEQ=0, ACK=0
10.0.0.2  --> 10.0.0.50 7777-->1057 [RST,ACK]  SEQ=0, ACK=1

But it doesn't, ethereal in packet summary show it to be still set to ACK=0
into the second packet; while in the raw data the increment is reported...

I hope to have explained better my doubt.

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Olivier Biot [mailto:ethereal@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Inviato: mercoledì 17 novembre 2004 22.12
A: "Camp0s"
Cc: Ethereal user support
Oggetto: Re: [Ethereal-users] May be a small visualization bug in 10.6
version


It's a feature.

If you want to see the *absolute* sequence numbers, go to Edit, Preferences,

click on "Protocols", and select the TCP protocol. Uncheck the tick mark on 
"use relative sequence numbers".

Best regards,

Olivier

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Camp0s

Hy, i'm new to this list and i'm using Ethereal in school lab since 3 weeks,
well i don't know for sure, but during a test on what happen when i telnet
to a machine at a port without a service behind (eg 7777) a get i incorrect
SEQ->ACK numbers in visualization, in brief, the request should be:

[snip]

For the 1st packet: 97 18 cd f6
For the second packet: 97 18 cd f7

... And the difference is correctly 1, as ACK should be incremented.

What do you think ? Did i do some mistake, misunderstood, it's a bug ?