Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Wireshark V1.8.0 - analysing dual NIC capture

From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:36:14 +0200
On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Tamás Varga wrote:

> Hi Guy, is this also means that there is no way today to display or filter packets based on the interface they have been captured? /Tamas
You can use a display filter like
frame.interface_id == 0
or so to only display packets captured on that interface.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Guy Harris
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 23:26
> To: Community support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Wireshark V1.8.0 - analysing dual NIC capture
> 
> 
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> 
>> Pretty much, yes.  The intent (I think) was just to allow capturing on
>> 2 interfaces simultaneously (rather than having to run 2 
>> Wiresharks/dumpcaps and then merge the traces offline).
>> 
>> But nothing was added to separate out potentially-duplicated traffic.
>> (The use case is more for multi-homed hosts.)
> 
> Yes.  Not all ways you can perform multi-interface capture are necessarily *useful*.  Think of it as being similar to the "any" device on Linux (the differences are that
> 
> 	1) you can control options on individual interfaces separately;
> 
> 	2) the interfaces can supply different link-layer header types;
> 
> 	3) you have to specify the list of interfaces when you start the capture).
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>             mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>