https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6153
--- Comment #27 from Asmita <adeenesh@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-29 00:53:06 PST ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> >
> > Hi Anders,
> >
> > If I directly use packet-gtp code, its not decoding all Cisco specific tlvs
> > from gtp protocol packet. (Though its decoding gtp protocol properly).
>
> So the protocol in question can be said to not be GTP but a Cisco dialect of
> GTP.
>
> >I have a
> > question here , can I go for plugin dissector check-in process for these
> > specific tlvs?. That is the specific reason I want to go for plugin option.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> We prefer not to add more plugins to Wireshark, plugins are more appropriate
> when you don't plan to make the code generally available such as a private
> dissector used only within a company. Even then I think you are better off
> distributing your own customised Wireshark binary rather then only the
> plugin(s).
>
> This dissector can be added as a built in even if it duplicates GTP code
> that's just a bad design decision if not absolutely necessary as any updates or
> improvements to the GTP code will not be automatically propagated.
As for AVPs wireshark has dictionary.xml for GX AVPs (common) and its
providing the scope for vendor specific xml file like Cisco.xml and
vodafone.xml etc.
Can we expect the similar picture for TLV side also in future? Like a separate
.c-file for common tlvs and the provision to add vendor specific .c-file for
specific tlvs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.
