Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version
From: Roland Knall <rknall () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:02:43 +0100
Hi On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu> wrote:
On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:15 AM, Roland Knall wrote:Ok, let me clarify the idea. Let's for instance say, that you want to have a graphical representation of the inner-workings of a communication of two machines.BTW, you're not thinking of something such as what you can get from the Statistics -> Flow Graph... menu item, are you?
Actually, that is kind-of what I am thinking, but this flow-diagram is not applicable for openSAFETY or industrial-ethernet solutions in general. Such devices use so-called bus-controllers to communicate, behind which the network communication takes place. That leads to the situation that often a device behind bc1 talks to other devices behind bc2 and bc3. In the flow-diagram such communication would now appear as single communications between bc1 and bc2/3, which does not represent the correct message flow. The same goes for the "Conversation List", "IO Graph" as well as the "Endpoint List". Also, following a specific conversation could be tricky. The second thing is, that I want to implement a network analyzer for openSAFETY. openSAFETY ( as many industrial-ethernet protocols ) is a multi-stage protocol. You have a "boot"-phase, a "configuration"-phase and a "operational"-phase. Each having their own specific communication commands and messages. A graphical representation of the network based on the diessected messages, as well as a graphical representation of the network status would be a useful add-on for the openSAFETY dissector. I am currently implementing some sort of tool for this using wireshark, but it is very openSAFETY specific, and I would prefer a more generic approach. And I have some hopes, that with a good plugin mechanism this could be solved using the Qt solution. Otherwise I would implement it using just the dissection engine and as a stand-alone tool, but that would also mean, that I would have to manage distribution, updates, review, ... and with a generic approach in wireshark this could be taken of my hands. regards, Roland ___________________________________________________________________________ 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:
- Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Roland Knall (Jan 05)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Stephen Fisher (Jan 05)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Guy Harris (Jan 05)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Gerald Combs (Jan 05)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Roland Knall (Jan 06)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Anders Broman (Jan 06)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Guy Harris (Jan 06)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Guy Harris (Jan 11)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Roland Knall (Jan 11)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Guy Harris (Jan 11)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version H Sivank (Jan 11)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Roland Knall (Jan 11)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Guy Harris (Jan 05)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Stephen Fisher (Jan 05)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Andreas Sikkema (Jan 13)
- Re: Question regarding QT/future Wireshark version Guy Harris (Jan 13)