[mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Yes I think tcp_dissect_pdus should be used as much as possible.  I even made a list (at least a few months ago) of "potential" dissectors that could be converted:

 

packet-banana.c
packet-beep.c - maybe
packet-bzr.c
packet-cigi.c
packet-classicstun.c
packet-distcc.c
packet-dtn.c
packet-dtpt.c
packet-elcom.c
packet-fcip.c
packet-gdsdb.c
packet-hartip.c
packet-ipsi-ctl.c
packet-kingfisher.c - maybe
packet-ldp.c
packet-llrp.c
packet-mikey.c
packet-ms-mms.c
packet-msdp.c
packet-ntp.c
packet-omapi.c - maybe (but probably not)
packet-pptp.c
packet-rsip.c
packet-rtsp.c - maybe
packet-tds.c
packet-tpkt.c
packet-vicp.c
packet-vnc.c
packet-x11.c
packet-zebra.c

 

There may be more and some of these may have already been converted (although I doubt it), but I figured it was a good starting point.

 

You're welcome to work on any of them.  It was a project I thought about doing, but never got started.

 

Michael

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Wu <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 4:39 am
Subject: [Wireshark-dev] Should dissect_tcp_pdus be used as much as possible?

Hi,

Should reassembly be enabled in as many TCP protocols as possible? That
is, is it desirable that TCP-based protocols use dissect_tcp_pdus with
reassembly set to true?

I am asking because I was fixing an error in the return value of the
Plan 9 dissector[1]. While at it, I converted it to use
dissect_tcp_pdus as that was trivial. I have not seen a fragmented 9p
capture though.

Kind regards,
Peter
https://lekensteyn.nl

 [1]: https://code.wireshark.org/review/2836/

___________________________________________________________________________
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