Re: [Nbd] Wireshark dissector for NBD
- To: ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@...17...>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] Wireshark dissector for NBD
- From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@...3...>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:31:05 +0100
- Message-id: <20061031163105.GB25973@...39...>
- In-reply-to: <20061031161238.GA25973@...39...>
- References: <c9a3e4540610291659o245c4c9byf007322e9b6cfea5@...18...> <20061030085415.GA27172@...39...> <c9a3e4540610310251o67721accu42cdeef3b78cf5d8@...18...> <c9a3e4540610310324v174a84a3l36ee040f32217669@...18...> <20061031161238.GA25973@...39...>
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:12:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:24:32AM +0000, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> > List
> > I have checked in to SVN 19752 of wireshark a dissector for NBD.
> > Please test and provide comments on how to make it more useful for NBD people.
> Could be me, but I can't seem to be able to enable it. When I go to
> Analyze->Decode as->Transport, then NBD isn't listed there (it is in a
> number of other places, though).
Actually, it autodetects that the conversation is NBD. Cool, I didn't
know wireshark could do that. So, it is me :)
One thing that might help is if the Info column would contain things
like "Read request" and "Read reply" instead of (or in addition to)
"NBD_CMD_READ 0x1000 28672" and "NBD_CMD_READ Error:0". Obviously Source
and Destination explain what's going on, but it would be slightly
clearer if they explicitly said that one is the request and the other is
Other than that, it seems pretty neat. Oh, and you do handle the
NBD_CMD_DISC okay -- there isn't much more to say about that than "if we
see that pass by as a command, the connection will drop"...
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22