Wireshark · Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Packets not captured, tcp acking lost segments. Large packets

[Michael Lynch <michaellynch511@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Sake

I'll pop in there and let them know

It was win 7, dell opti 780 with broadcom.

Regards

On 08/01/2011, at 10:14 PM, Sake Blok <sake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 8 jan 2011, at 11:40, Michael Lynch wrote:
>
> > God I hope IPv6 is simpler!!
>
> In some ways it is, but in most ways it isn't, you're in for a  
> treat :-)
>
> > Laura mentions that her Wireshark did pick up these LSO packets in  
> > the trace, so I guess I was just unlucky.
> > As Graham suggested, I will give a try the "Edit | Preferences |  
> > Expand Protocols and find IP | Check "Support packet-capture from  
> > IP TSO-enabled hardware".
> > I'll let you know if that options resolves the incomplete capture  
> > trace.
>
> It won't, the protocol options only have effect on the way Wireshark  
> interprets and displays the captured data not on which packets will  
> be captured.
>
> If the large frames were not captured, they were not captured. It is  
> however interesting to see that netmon on the same machine was able  
> to capture them, while wireshark wasn't. This can be caused by the  
> fact that they both use a different way of getting the packets of  
> the networking stack. Since Wireshark uses WinPcap on windows  
> systems, that's where this could be solved. You might want to  
> address this at the WinPcap mailinglist to improve the WinPcap  
> library to be able to capture large frames in your particular setup  
> (which must also be used by other people).
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Sake
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________


> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> >
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>             mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe