https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5183
Bill Meier <wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Bill Meier <wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-04 13:13:08 EDT ---
Problem fixed in SVN #34366.
Thanks for the bug report and the patch.
After applying your patch, I then ended up doing a general cleanup of the PANA
dissector so some of your code got changed a bit.
Based upon the RFC, one of the main things I fixed was to dissect the AVP value
if the "vendor" bit was *not* set in the AVP Flags. (The code was actually
doing the reverse). Please verify that this is correct.
(For all the details on the changes see:
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=34366 ).
Do you have a (real) PANA capture taken "in the wild" ?
(I'm guessing that the original 'pana-draft18.cap' was maybe somehow
hand-generated since it didn't match the actual PANA draft18 document with
respect to the definition value in the AVP length field).
In any case, it would be much appreciated if you could help by updating the
Wireshark Wiki PANA protocol page ( http://wiki.wireshark.org/PANA )
and replace the capture attached there with a real PANA capture (or at least
with your version 'pana-draft18-patched.cap').
Also: I'm curious: It appears that several major bugs have existed in this
dissector for at least several years. Is this protocol being implemented and
used ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
