On Jan 12, 2008 4:34 AM, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That would mean that traffic from TCP port 50505 won't be dissected at
> all.
I did write in the initial part of my reply why Vikas should consider dissecting
packets with source port 50505 as well... This suggestion was for the extreme
case that he still wants to dissect for destination port 50505 (whatever the
reason might be).
>
> (What happens if the traffic happens to be to *and* from port 50505?)
>
I must admit I didn't think of this particular case.