https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4014
--- Comment #28 from Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-16 20:29:37 PDT ---
...which (the user of a random number as the ICMP ID, that is) renders the
whole byte-order issue moot; there's not much reason to care about the
byte-order of a random pile of bits.
Not that the byte-order issue is that relevant in any case; one could argue
with people putting out little-endian ICMP IDs until one is blue in the face,
but until they stop, and the last release putting out little-endian ICMP IDs
ceases to be on any network, users and the applications they use will either
have to not care about the byte order of ICMP IDs or will have to cope with
little-endian ICMP IDs. ("little-endian" implies that there's some semantics
other than "a random pile of 16 bits" to the ICMP ID, e.g. "process ID" or
"counter"; whilst ICMP 792 says "For example, the identifier might be used like
a port in TCP or UDP to identify a session, and the sequence number might be
incremented on each echo request sent.", that sentence includes the phrase "for
example" and two instances of the word "might", so there's no guarantee that
its numerical value has any significance whatsoever.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
