On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:
>
>> Why would anyone want to deduce this? In wireshark, both dlt values
>> will map to the same dissector,
>
> They *shouldn't* map to the same dissector. They should map to *different*
> dissec
On Mar 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:
> Why would anyone want to deduce this? In wireshark, both dlt values
> will map to the same dissector,
They *shouldn't* map to the same dissector. They should map to *different*
dissector routines, which call a common routine, passing an "FCS pr
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:
>> Whether or not the radio chips give the FCS to you when you run them
>> in sniffer mode depends on the chip. Many just validate the FCS, strip
>> it, and pass you the packet minus the FCS, but s
On Mar 15, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:
> It sounds like you think there are two variants of 802.15.4, one with
> an FCS, and one without.
No, I don't think that.
Perhaps I need to rename the page, and change the language in it to make this
even clearer. I originally said "link-layer
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>> http://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.html
>>>
>>> contains a description of all the existing link-layer header types for
>>> which t
On Mar 15, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>http://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.html
>>
>> contains a description of all the existing link-layer header types for which
>> there is either
>
> Not sure why there is two link types f
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> http://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.html
>
> contains a description of all the existing link-layer header types for which
> there is either
Not sure why there is two link types for IEEE 802.15.4.
The "no FCS at the end" case doesn't need
