Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] SCCP segmentation

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd been meaning to take a look at the binding_info stuff.  Is it 
basically equivalent to a conversation for SCCP?  (I had always 
envisioned using/adapting the conversation stuff to SCCP to keep track 
of Class-2 stuff but have never had time.)

LEGO wrote:
> I think it should not be hard to do it based of the binding_info.
>
> Beware that if (binding == &no_binding) we do not have a binding so
> you should not reassemble or else we'll have trouble.
>
> BTW: binding is not the propper name, session or call might be better names.
>
> Luis
>
> On 1/18/06, Anders Broman <a.broman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm looking into it.
> > Brg
> > Anders
> >
> > Hi Olivier,
> >
> > you are correct, SCCP reassembly is currently not implemented.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Michael
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Jacques, Olivier (OCBU-Test Infra) wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > It seems that SCCP (with TCAP payload) re-assembly (XUDTs) is not
> > > supported in Ethereal.
> > > Anyone already looked at it? Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > I have a trace I can send on demand.
> > >
> > > Olivier.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ethereal-dev mailing list
> > Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
>
>
> --
> This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.
> -- Marshall McLuhan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev