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] DESEGMENT_ONE_MORE_SEGMENT usage/fault

From: Lajos Oláh <lajos.olah@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:06:16 +0100
Hi,

No, unfortunately I'm above UDP. But thanks for the reply anyway.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/Lajos

-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of wsgd
Sent: 2010. március 22. 20:33
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] DESEGMENT_ONE_MORE_SEGMENT usage/fault

Are you above TCP ?
Inside Wireshark,
 verify that  "Edit / Preferences / Protocols / TCP / Allow subdissector to reassemble TCP streams"
 is checked.


Olivier


Lajos Oláh a écrit :
> Hi all,
>  
> I'm developing a dissector dissecting MTP2 packets from RTP stream 
> (for semipermanent connections). I used part of the code from 
> packet-lapd.c (it is almost tha same except that it is for the LAPD 
> protocol).
>  
> In that code, when the RTP data ends in the middle of an MTP2 packet, 
> the dissector sets pinfo->desegment_offset = 0 and 
> pinfo->desegment_len = DESEGMENT_ONE_MORE_SEGMENT and exits.
>  
> In the README.developer, it is written that if a dissector sets these 
> values and returns it will be called again with data from the actual 
> packet plus the data from the next packet. But this never happens. My 
> dissector is never called with more data than 1 RTP data filed (40 
> byte in my case).
>  
> I've also created debug patches for the TELNET dissector 
> (packet-telnet.c) (to test this defregmentation functionality outside 
> my buggy code) to force the dissector to always request data from the 
> next packet using DESEGMENT_ONE_MORE_SEGMENT but it was failing as well.
>  
> Have anyone of You encountered such problem? Am I doing something wrong?
>  
> Do I need to do something extra to get this feature work or we have a 
> wireshark bug?
>  
> Please share experiences with these defregmentation method.
>  
> (I've attached my code with debug printing included)
>  
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> *LAJOS OLAH *
> *System Test Engineer*
>
> Ericsson Telecom Hungary
> RFT/D
> Budapest, Irinyi Jozsef Street 4-20
> 1017, Hungary
> Phone +36309537333
> lajos.olah@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> _www.ericsson.com_
>
>
>
>
>
> Ericsson Magyarország Kft., Székhely: Budapest, Laborc u.1. 
> Nyilvántartó cégbíróság: Fővárosi Bíróság. Cégjegyzékszám: 01-09-070937
>
> This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on 
> the basis of the term set out at _www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer_ 
> <http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>
>  
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe


-- 
Wireshark Generic Dissector http://wsgd.free.fr

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe