Thanks Sake
I'll pop in there and let them know
It was win 7, dell opti 780 with broadcom.
Regards
On 08/01/2011, at 10:14 PM, Sake Blok <sake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 jan 2011, at 11:40, Michael Lynch wrote:
God I hope IPv6 is simpler!!
In some ways it is, but in most ways it isn't, you're in for a
treat :-)
Laura mentions that her Wireshark did pick up these LSO packets in
the trace, so I guess I was just unlucky.
As Graham suggested, I will give a try the "Edit | Preferences |
Expand Protocols and find IP | Check "Support packet-capture from
IP TSO-enabled hardware".
I'll let you know if that options resolves the incomplete capture
trace.
It won't, the protocol options only have effect on the way Wireshark
interprets and displays the captured data not on which packets will
be captured.
If the large frames were not captured, they were not captured. It is
however interesting to see that netmon on the same machine was able
to capture them, while wireshark wasn't. This can be caused by the
fact that they both use a different way of getting the packets of
the networking stack. Since Wireshark uses WinPcap on windows
systems, that's where this could be solved. You might want to
address this at the WinPcap mailinglist to improve the WinPcap
library to be able to capture large frames in your particular setup
(which must also be used by other people).
Cheers,
Sake
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
