[Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

That is great. Would you be able to create a roofnet protocol page on the
Wiki, so everyone can gain insight into this protocol?

Thanx,
Jaap

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Nicola Arnoldi wrote:

> Ok guys, the dissector Sebastien sent a few messages ago was perfect.
>
> Anyhow, I just can decode the roofnet header, and not the data field
> contained in it.
>
> Can you help me?
>
> Nicola
>
> Il giorno gio, 14/12/2006 alle 13.18 +0100, Nicola Arnoldi ha scritto:
> > On lun, 2006-12-11 at 13:01 +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> > > Hi Nicola,
> > >
> > >
> > >    I've written the first version of the dissector. It only does not
> > > send data to others dissectors for the moment.
> > > I've ran it against your capture file and checked some packets.  I've
> > > seen two roofnet nodes : 5.175.114.207, 5.175.113.111, is it right?
> > >
> > >   But ... yes, there is one :) ... see the following
> > >
> > > Obviously, roofnet has several ethernet types. It uses at least 0x0641,
> > > 0x0643, 0x0644 and 0x0645. It seems like if each of these types
> > > identifies one roofnet packet type.
> > >
> > > To what I've seen there are :
> > > - 2 packets 0x0644 identified as data and broadcasted, one for each node.
> > > - 1 packet 0x0645 identified as a reply
> > > - a bunch of 0x0643 packets identified as data ... obviously the TCP
> > > connection
> > > - and 4 packets 0x0641 with a roofnet type of *0* which is not possible
> > > with the definition you provide me
> > > Is it the query type?
> >
> > The EtherType is modified by the Click router, so don't worry about
> > that. The Hex value would be perfect!
> > >
> > > Another thing, looking at the version field. I noticed it was not the
> > > same for all the packets!
> > > 0x0643, 0x0644 and 0x0645 = 12
> > > and again *0x0641* = 4
> > >
> > > Furthermore if length data field seems to be correct ... cksum does not
> > > seem to be computed for each frame :-/
> >
> > No, the checksum is not yet computed. Roofnet is still in its infancy
> > and our implementation is really ... experimental.
> >
> > A clarification on the 'next' field.
> > 'Next field' is an integer which tells which of the N hops has to be
> > considered the next and is updated at each relaying node.
> >
> > Forward is a link metric in the forward direction on a certain link (you
> > see that this value is present for each link contained in roofnet
> > header).
> > The same happens for rev, which is a forward metric.
> >
> > NOTE THAT THEY ARE NOT IP ADDRESSES
> >
> > NICOLA
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
>