[Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I'm sorry that I assumed you were more familiar with CDP.
I think because it's a Cisco protocol many manufacturers want to
interoperate with it. I know that at least HP and Broadcom (in their VoIP
chipsets) support it, as well as the Linux protocol stack.

Got to run!

Jaap

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Sebastien Tandel wrote:

> Hi,
>
>    Of course that's why you review the patches! And I haven't said
> anything about this review. You, guys, are the "wireshark experts" and
> you know better than me the potential side effect(s) of a particular patch.
> But I'm sorry to try to glean some additional information because *I*
> didn't get to the point with the information I knew
> *and* the information *you* gave (what is the exact meaning of more
> common part CDP and less common ISIS?). At least Joerg had answered with
> more than a "for now? yes." and gave useful information I didn't know
> even if it does not entirely fulfill my expectations. CDP may be
> partially implemented by a few others vendors than Cisco. The only case
> I knew was riverstone which implements a CDP but I think it's not even
> able to interoperate with the Cisco one.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sebastien Tandel
>
>
> Jaap Keuter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> >
> >
> >> hummmm ... do you meant
> >>
> >> "Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for ISIS
> >> (like TCP/UDP/IP).
> >>
> >> support added for :
> >>  - booleans hf_isis_lsp_checksum_good, hf_isis_lsp_checksum_bad in the tree,
> >>  - information in the info column if bad checksum,
> >>  - expert info for bad checksum,
> >>  - color filters update"
> >>
> >
> > That is what he meant.
> >
> >
> >> Read in this context, it seems clear to me. At least it is clear that I
> >> haven't updated a rule for OSPF which indicates that a new SPT has been
> >> computed.
> >>
> >
> > Very clear.
> >
> >
> >> Anyway, as I said I don't care whether this rule is released ... I am
> >> just a little bit circumspect about the reasons and tried to know more.
> >>
> >
> > Thats cool.
> >
> >
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sebastien Tandel
> >>
> >> Joerg Mayer wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:52:21PM +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>    I am not defending anything here (cause as you said I can change this
> >>>> preference rule) but I don't get to the point. CDP is only implemented
> >>>> on Cisco routers but there are also Juniper, Hitachi, Alcatel, Nortel,
> >>>> 6wind etc... Having Cisco routers does not imply you'll configure CDP.
> >>>> Furthermore, you clearly won't if there are others vendors routers in
> >>>> your network. Last but not least, CDP does not seem to support IPv6. Do
> >>>> you really think it's the best option?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Quite a few other vendors implement at least part of CDP. Also, I
> >>> consider it bad style to introduce a change to the existing behaviour
> >>> via a harmless reading changelog ("color filters update").
> >>>
> >
> > That's why we review patches before applying them, aren't we?
> >
> >
> >>>  ciao
> >>>       Joerg
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > Thanx,
> > Jaap
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>