Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports
From: Bill Meier <wmeier () newsguy com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:10:14 -0400
Craig Bumpstead wrote:
Bill, Thanks for the quick response. That setting is off. The first and second packets are TCP port 4435 and 21016 which it decodes. However from that point on it doesn't decode packets with TCP port 4435. I loath posting my code, but obviously I am making a mistake somewhere.
I don't see anything obviously wrong with the code. A question: What is actually shown in Wireshark for the packets not decoded ? Are they decoded as TCP ? As some other protocol ? ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Craig Bumpstead (Apr 26)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Bill Meier (Apr 26)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Craig Bumpstead (Apr 26)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Bill Meier (Apr 26)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Craig Bumpstead (Apr 26)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Maynard, Chris (Apr 26)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Craig Bumpstead (Apr 26)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Stephen Fisher (Apr 27)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Craig Bumpstead (Apr 26)
- Re: Dissecting a Protocol with multiple static TCP ports Bill Meier (Apr 26)