Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Roofnet Dissector
From: Sebastien Tandel <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:31:26 +0100
Hi,

   happy to see that my work fit your needs ... but I was myself a
little bit busy these last days (and out of the real world as I was
unable to have an Internet connection :)). I will take a look at it this
monday.


Sebastien Tandel
Nicola Arnoldi wrote:
> Ok guys, the dissector Sebastien sent a few messages ago was perfect.
>
> Anyhow, I just can decode the roofnet header, and not the data field
> contained in it.
>
> Can you help me?
>
> Nicola
>
> Il giorno gio, 14/12/2006 alle 13.18 +0100, Nicola Arnoldi ha scritto:
>   
>> On lun, 2006-12-11 at 13:01 +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote: 
>>     
>>> Hi Nicola,
>>>
>>>
>>>    I've written the first version of the dissector. It only does not
>>> send data to others dissectors for the moment.
>>> I've ran it against your capture file and checked some packets.  I've
>>> seen two roofnet nodes : 5.175.114.207, 5.175.113.111, is it right?
>>>
>>>   But ... yes, there is one :) ... see the following
>>>
>>> Obviously, roofnet has several ethernet types. It uses at least 0x0641,
>>> 0x0643, 0x0644 and 0x0645. It seems like if each of these types
>>> identifies one roofnet packet type.
>>>
>>> To what I've seen there are :
>>> - 2 packets 0x0644 identified as data and broadcasted, one for each node.
>>> - 1 packet 0x0645 identified as a reply
>>> - a bunch of 0x0643 packets identified as data ... obviously the TCP
>>> connection
>>> - and 4 packets 0x0641 with a roofnet type of *0* which is not possible
>>> with the definition you provide me
>>> Is it the query type?
>>>       
>> The EtherType is modified by the Click router, so don't worry about
>> that. The Hex value would be perfect! 
>>     
>>> Another thing, looking at the version field. I noticed it was not the
>>> same for all the packets!
>>> 0x0643, 0x0644 and 0x0645 = 12
>>> and again *0x0641* = 4
>>>
>>> Furthermore if length data field seems to be correct ... cksum does not
>>> seem to be computed for each frame :-/
>>>       
>> No, the checksum is not yet computed. Roofnet is still in its infancy
>> and our implementation is really ... experimental. 
>>
>> A clarification on the 'next' field.
>> 'Next field' is an integer which tells which of the N hops has to be
>> considered the next and is updated at each relaying node.
>>
>> Forward is a link metric in the forward direction on a certain link (you
>> see that this value is present for each link contained in roofnet
>> header).
>> The same happens for rev, which is a forward metric.
>>
>> NOTE THAT THEY ARE NOT IP ADDRESSES
>>
>> NICOLA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wireshark-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>