Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Patch to prevent rtp/rtcp to register conversationwhen disabled

[Ruud Linders <moztest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Martin et al,

That's a good point.  I can make something for that.
It would make the preference default to the current behaviour, i.e.
create conversation for RTP on port X and RTCP on port X+1 and
let the preference switch off/on RTCP.

Note that my patch to disable RTP/RTCP creating conversations
when disabled should still go in IMHO.
(When the resp. protocols are disabled, they shouldn't claim frames
in a conversation, preventing other dissectors to decode).

	Ruud


Martin Mathieson wrote:
> Would it make sense to (also?) add a preference setting to the SDP dissector
> indicating whether or not RTCP conversations should be created?  H.245 and
> RTSP specify the RTCP port explicity so wouldn't need such an option.
>
> Disabling RTCP altogether seems maybe a drastic way to achieve what you
> want.
>
> Martin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ruud Linders" <moztest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 03 July 2004 18:04
> Subject: [Ethereal-dev] Patch to prevent rtp/rtcp to register
> conversationwhen disabled
>
>
>
> > Here is a patch (against nightly build 2004-07-02) to prevent both
> > RTCP and RTP to create conversations when the respective protocols
> > are disabled.
> >
> > It solves for me the problem that in packet-sdp.c the function
> > rtp_add_address(... srcport ...) is blindly followed by
> > rtCp_add_address(..srcport+1...).
> > Since the SDP decoder can't now if RTCP is present or not, that
> > seems to be the only way to create a conversation for RTCP.
> > (IFF RTCP is present, it IS at the RTP port + 1)
> >
> > However, in my trace there were no RTCP but instead RTP packets
> > at the srcport+1 which were subsequently decoded wrongly as RTCP.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ruud Linders
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
>
> > --- packet-rtcp.c.20040702 2004-06-30 23:08:58.000000000 +0200
> > +++ packet-rtcp.c 2004-07-03 18:38:57.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -248,6 +248,13 @@
> >  struct _rtcp_conversation_info *p_conv_data = NULL;
> >
> >  /*
> > + * If protocol isn't enabled, we shouldn't create a conversation
> > + */
> > + if (!proto_is_protocol_enabled(find_protocol_by_id(proto_rtcp))) {
> > +   return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> >  * If this isn't the first time this packet has been processed,
> >  * we've already done this work, so we don't need to do it
> >  * again.
> > --- packet-rtp.c.20040702 2004-07-01 08:59:38.000000000 +0200
> > +++ packet-rtp.c 2004-07-03 18:40:31.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -203,6 +203,13 @@
> >  struct _rtp_conversation_info *p_conv_data = NULL;
> >
> >  /*
> > + * If protocol isn't enabled, we shouldn't create a conversation
> > + */
> > + if (!proto_is_protocol_enabled(find_protocol_by_id(proto_rtp))) {
> > +   return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> >  * If this isn't the first time this packet has been processed,
> >  * we've already done this work, so we don't need to do it
> >  * again.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ethereal-dev mailing list
> > Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev