Wireshark · Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] can/should SCCP XUDT reassembly be adjusted or finer-grained

[Ariel Burbaickij <ariel.burbaickij@xxxxxxxxx>]

OK, thank you for the update. Maybe it would be a good idea to clean the corresponding code in packet-sccp.c too :). Actually, both methods are fine with me, i.e option being labeled "Reassembly UDT/DT1/etc." or to have separate ones for each type. Actually, one case where it might be useful is during some type acceptance or torture testing. Now, do you have something to say about the actual process of reassembly in case of DT1, as I wrote in my second e-mail? It is not very clear to me in all details how it happens.

/wbr

Ariel Burbaickij

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11/22/13 13:26, Ariel Burbaickij wrote:

Hello all,
obviously from several levels ""SCCP XUDT  reassembly" does not control
reassembly of {X,L}UDT but also of DT1s, shouldn't the corresponding
parameter under preferences be adjuster or maybe better yet -- introduce
several -- one for {L,X}UDT, another one for DT{1.2}?

I'm not sure why we'd need 2 preferences: it seems unlikely someone would want to reassemble XUDTs but not reassemble DT1s.

But I see your point that the interface is misleading; I updated the preference text (and a bit more) in r53576.  That change will show up in the next development version (1.11.3) and the next stable version (1.12.0?).

___________________________________________________________________________
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