http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1459
------- Comment #4 from ulf.lamping@xxxxxx 2007-03-29 01:21 GMT -------
I'm not saying that "ipv6.version == 4" should work - as I guess no one would
expect this to be working - it even looks strange IMHO.
I'm only asking about "ip.version == 6" should work, as that looks quite ok, at
least to me.
Jörg, I think you are technically correct that IPv6 has become a different
protocol than IPv4 (same name, but implementation and L2 type code are
different). But basically that's not the point here.
Put yourself in the perspective of a person not knowing IPv6 pretty well. There
is IPv4 which you know more or less and there's this "new" IPv6. Let's have a
look. Ah, this seems to be a new version of IP. The literature says, there's a
4 bit version field at the beginning of both versions and it should contain 6
for IPv6 (hmmm, that sounds quite reasonable, as we have a new version here).
And here's the problem: There's actually *no* reason to expect that filtering
for ip.version == 6 doesn't show you IPv6 - every aspect mentioned so far in
fact forces you to believe that ip.version == 6 should work.
So in this situation, you'll have to *know* how Wireshark handles IPv6 to be
able to filter for it and the filter that sounds reasonable simply doesn't
work.
This is just bad usability. Usability is about programs to meet peoples
expectations - instead of forcing users to learn how a program works.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.