[vineeth vijay <vineethvijaysv@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes, highlighting would work too. Ultimately the application info corresponding to display filter should be visible easily without the need to scroll through the entire frame. Any suggestions on how to achieve this?
I think GUI coloring implementation would paint the entire frame with the same color,wouldn't it?

Vineeth

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 10, 2013, at 8:49 PM, vineeth vijay wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Dissection is fine. What I was wondering is whether it is possible to show these individual data chunks as separate frames themselves.
> >But they are in the same frame. I really prefer not to show them in a way they
> have not been on the wire.
>

> Basically agreed on the above point.  Changing the default behavior may not be good due to all the copied lower layer bytes and resulting increase in the size of capture in case there are 4-5 chunks per packet. But still feel it would be a nice optional feature to have when doing actual offline analysis.

I do understand that it is sometimes hard to find the application layer packet when using display
filters and there are multiple application layer packets bundled in a single frame. I also have
traces with a large number of bundled chunks.

>
> > Hence, when i apply display filter ,  only the chunks with  exact matches should be visible. Is this supported currently?
> >No. Filtering is based on packets. Not sure how to improve that. We can't show 'half' of a packet.
> However, there might be ways to draw your attention to the upper layer packet which matches the
> filter.
> Regarding above point, would like to suggest that the packet information being displayed can be restricted to the PDU which actually matches the display filter. E.g out of an SCTP packet carrying 3-4 M3UA chunks, the pinfo of only the  chunk matching the filter can be displayed?

Thinking about this... What about displaying only the frames, which match a display filter (like today).
However, it might be helpful to highlight that part (like the M3UA packet) which matches the display filter.
This should allow to find the upper layer packet pretty fast. What do you think?

Best regards
Michael

>
> Vineeth
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:31 PM, vineeth vijay wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Dissection is fine. What I was wondering is whether it is possible to show these individual data chunks as separate frames themselves.
> But they are in the same frame. I really prefer not to show them in a way they
> have not been on the wire.
> > Hence, when i apply display filter ,  only the chunks with  exact matches should be visible. Is this supported currently?
> No. Filtering is based on packets. Not sure how to improve that. We can't show 'half' of a packet.
> However, there might be ways to draw your attention to the upper layer packet which matches the
> filter.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
> > Currently , i use the below tool for this purpose:
> > http://frox25.no-ip.org/~mtve/wiki/SctpDechunk.html
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vineeth
> >
> > what problem are you trying to solve? Wireshark supports dissecting the upper layer paylaod
> > for bundled DATA chunks for ages...
> >
> > Best regards
> > Michael
> > >
> > > Vineeth
> > > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> > > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> > >             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> >              mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> >             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe