Applies the patch and compiled but failed to execute (on Ubuntu)...<br><br>14:43:34 Err file about_dlg.c: line 250 (splash_update): assertion failed: (ul_sofar <= ul_count)<br>Aborted (core dumped)<br><br>Any ideas? Has someone tried this on Ubuntu?<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:37 AM, John Watlington <<a href="mailto:wad@laptop.org" target="_blank">wad@laptop.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
A version of wireshark which is patched to monitor the new mesh<br>
protocol is available at:<br>
<br>
(older, F7 version)<br>
<a href="http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-0.99.5.mesh.patch" target="_blank">http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-0.99.5.mesh.patch</a><br>
<a href="http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm" target="_blank">http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm</a><br>
<a href="http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-gnome-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm" target="_blank">http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-gnome-0.99.5-1.i386.rpm</a><br>
<br>
(current, F8 version)<br>
<a href="http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.patch" target="_blank">http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.patch</a><br>
<a href="http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm" target="_blank">http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm</a><br>
<a href="http://dev.laptop.org/%7Ewad/wireshark-gnome-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm" target="_blank">http://dev.laptop.org/~wad/wireshark-gnome-0.99.7.mesh.i386.rpm</a><br>
<br>
I'm still not seeing RREQ traffic, but I haven't played<br>
around with the new version much.<br>
<br>
Enjoy,<br>
wad<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
On Feb 21, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Javier Cardona wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 2/21/08, John Watlington <<a href="mailto:wad@laptop.org" target="_blank">wad@laptop.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for the reply. What is your estimate of the difficulty<br>
>> in supporting the new mesh format ?<br>
>><br>
>> We were really hoping to examine the simple mesh traffic<br>
>> carefully next week, and this puts a big crimp in those plans.<br>
><br>
> It would take me about three hours, including testing, generating the<br>
> patch, etc. I don't have that time this week but may work on it early<br>
> next week.<br>
><br>
> Javier<br>
><br>
>> wad<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Feb 21, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Javier Cardona wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> John,<br>
>>><br>
>>> The patch was up to date up until we had to change the format of<br>
>>> broadcast traffic. It has not been updated since. Unicast traffic<br>
>>> should still be parsed correctly. Please contact Ronak if you<br>
>>> want us<br>
>>> to work on this.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Cheers,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Javier<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 2/21/08, John Watlington <<a href="mailto:wad@laptop.org" target="_blank">wad@laptop.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Yeah, but I was hoping not to have to parse each packet<br>
>>>> manually to<br>
>>>> determine if it is carrying data (TCP,UDP,etc.) or Path/Route<br>
>>>> discovery<br>
>>>> traffic.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> So nobody has patched wireshark to actually decipher mesh<br>
>>>> traffic ?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> wad<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Feb 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Ricardo Carrano wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Isn't the LLC traffic what you're looking for?<br>
>>>>> I see a lot of multicast traffic on your file, particularly to<br>
>>>>> 01:00:5e:7f:47:31. They are LLC.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM, John Watlington <<a href="mailto:wad@laptop.org" target="_blank">wad@laptop.org</a>><br>
>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> My screen looks like the screen shot you sent when looking at<br>
>>>>> that data. I can see the mesh headers on the pings.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Take a look at the data I pointed to. It tried to record a<br>
>>>>> session<br>
>>>>> of a number of laptops collaborating. I set the capture mask<br>
>>>>> to 7 (beacons, link layer, and data). But all I see in wireshark<br>
>>>>> is beacons and LLC traffic.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Given your data and screenshot, this is user error not misapplied<br>
>>>>> patch... Still, is there any way to dig deeper into simple mesh<br>
>>>>> traffic ?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> wad<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Ricardo Carrano wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> <capture.dump><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Javier Cardona<br>
>>> cozybit Inc.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Javier Cardona<br>
> cozybit Inc.<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>