http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2458
Jewgenij.Bytschkow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Jewgenij.Bytschkow@t-
| |systems.com
--- Comment #2 from Jewgenij.Bytschkow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-14 08:34:04 GMT ---
In the description of the bug I named a PPPoE TAG as "unknown" if it either has
no assigned value yet, or simply has a code unknown to Wireshark, or both. At
any of these cases (also for really "illegal", "exotic", or "test-only"
TAG_TYPEs) Wireshark should display at least the TAG's hex code (4 hex digits
of the TAG_TYPE) under PPPoE subtree and name it "Unknown" - like a way we can
view them now in PADR/PADS, e.g.:
Tag: Unknown (0x0100)
I am not sure, whether the Wireshark in case of "Unknown TAG" must show also
the VALUE data of the TLV on the next line under the TAG_TYPE, as it is done in
PPPoE Subtree by now. If it will not be implemented in future Wireshark
versions, it will not be a big problem and one can, in case of need, easily
find the hex data of the TAG_VALUE in the "Packet Bytes" pane (hexdump) at the
bottom of the window.
Nevertheless, it is important to be able to identify all(!) PPPoE TAGs (both
"known" and "unknown" under PPPoE Subtree) and in all(!) PPPoE discovery
packets (PADI, PADO, PADR, PADS) if the TLVs are composed/formatted correctly.
We really need such a functionality in Wireshark and TShark.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.