I posted a bug report and proposed patch for review already:
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2423
- Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Feren
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:48 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] services file and port ranges
I vote to parse the range.
As parsing the range makes it easier to do something I want anyway, I'll
post
a patch to the bugs list shortly.
-Andrew
--- "Maynard, Chris" <Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I noticed that IANA lists a few ports in ranges. For example, x11 is
> listed as:
> x11 6000-6063/tcp X Window System
> x11 6000-6063/udp X Window System
>
> But addr_resolv.c:parse_service_line() currently expects entries in
> services(5) format, i.e., a single port only. So, should IANA be
> encouraged to change their format to avoid port ranges and comply with
> the format specified in services(5)? Or, more likely, should the
> parsing of the services file be changed so that a range of ports is
> allowed and any port within the range will be returned as the
> corresponding service name?
>
> - Chris
> References: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
-Andrew Feren
acferen@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
