Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 10836] e212.mcc / e212.mnc filter for both ULI and RAI
Comment # 5
on bug 10836
from Michael
(In reply to Anders Broman from comment #4)
> (In reply to Michael from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Anders Broman from comment #2)
> > > Having a common filter for e212 can be advantigous if you want to find a
> > > certain e212 number across protocols and it was easier to code it this way
> > > of course.
> > >
> > > As an enhancement perhaps dissect_e212_mcc_mnc() should take a hf_id(or do
> > > we need 2 hf:s?) as input and if not -1 use that and add the e212 filter as
> > > generated or something like that.
> >
> > Hello Anders!
> >
> > Understood. Concerning GTP I can say from practical experience that it has
> > happened that some mobile phone operators send one RAI value and a different
> > ULI parameter.
> >
> > For example Telefonica Spain:
> >
> > -----------------------------
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > We use this MNC 99 in ULI (user location information) for some of our
> > services.
> >
> > Anyway, please you can use MNC in RAI (routing area identity) field. In RAI
> > you can see the right MNC 07 and MCC 214.
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > Meaning they send MCC 214 MNC 07 in the RAI and MCC 214 MNC 99 in the ULI.
> >
> > I doubt that this is correct behavior of Telefonica, however with the
> > current Wireshark implementation it is not possible to filter these cases
> > out. Also I cannot estimate what parameter has a higher priority when I use
> > e212.mcc and e212.mnc.
>
> What would be the prefered filter/output?
> RAI 21407
> + MCC 214
> + MNC 07
Not sure I understood your question correctly. I personally would prefer:
rai.mcc, rai.mnc and uli.mcc, uli.mnc
as a filter if this is possible and agreeable.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
