Huge thanks to our Platinum Members Endace and LiveAction,
and our Silver Member Veeam, for supporting the Wireshark Foundation and project.

Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [PATCH] ISIS Checksum

From: Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:07:27 +0100 (CET)
Hi,

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Sebastien Tandel wrote:

> hummmm ... do you meant
>
> "Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for ISIS
> (like TCP/UDP/IP).
>
> support added for :
>  - booleans hf_isis_lsp_checksum_good, hf_isis_lsp_checksum_bad in the tree,
>  - information in the info column if bad checksum,
>  - expert info for bad checksum,
>  - color filters update"

That is what he meant.

> Read in this context, it seems clear to me. At least it is clear that I
> haven't updated a rule for OSPF which indicates that a new SPT has been
> computed.

Very clear.

> Anyway, as I said I don't care whether this rule is released ... I am
> just a little bit circumspect about the reasons and tried to know more.

Thats cool.

> Regards,
>
> Sebastien Tandel
>
> Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:52:21PM +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> >
> >>    I am not defending anything here (cause as you said I can change this
> >> preference rule) but I don't get to the point. CDP is only implemented
> >> on Cisco routers but there are also Juniper, Hitachi, Alcatel, Nortel,
> >> 6wind etc... Having Cisco routers does not imply you'll configure CDP.
> >> Furthermore, you clearly won't if there are others vendors routers in
> >> your network. Last but not least, CDP does not seem to support IPv6. Do
> >> you really think it's the best option?
> >>
> >
> > Quite a few other vendors implement at least part of CDP. Also, I
> > consider it bad style to introduce a change to the existing behaviour
> > via a harmless reading changelog ("color filters update").

That's why we review patches before applying them, aren't we?

> >
> >  ciao
> >       Joerg
> >

Thanx,
Jaap