It seems that newer versions of wireshark does not dissect/display avdecc/ieee 1722.1 packets. Only the 1722 part of the packets are shown in the newer versions. Versions tested: Using tshark the old version displays: How can I enable the dissection in the new version? IEEE1722.1 is enabled in the list of enabled protocols. There is no option to force decoding as IEEE1722.1. relevant packet capture asked 10 Jan '17, 04:23 leon1234 edited 10 Jan '17, 05:47 |
One Answer:
As the dissection of IEEE1722 has been "improved" so that the message type is now an element of dissection rather than text added to the tree, tshark output no longer shows the text you were looking for. You can fix this by inspecting the packet in the Wireshark GUI (using the default profile), selecting the IEEE 1722.1 Message Type field, right-clicking and selecting "Apply As Column". Running tshark now give me:
You could also use the tshark Note: I'm using 2.3.0, i.e. a dev build. answered 10 Jan '17, 06:32 grahamb ♦ There is no "IEEE 1722.1 Message Type" field to select in the new GUI. Setting the filter to ieee17221.message_type results in no packets being displayed. Using It seems that I'll have to use the dev build or an ancient version together with multiple -e options. This seems wrong given the nice -T json output available for other packets. Should I file a bug report? (10 Jan '17, 23:10) leon1234 I think it would be best to try a dev build first. Changes to the stable release are meant to be bugfixes only and this falls in a grey area. If the dev build doesn't produce the required output, then definitely file a bug report. IMHO I think the dev dissection is wrong as the info column is showing the IEEE 1722 protocol subtype instead of the IEEE 1722.1 message type, I thought the info column should show the "highest" protocol seen, e.g. an HTTP GET, not a TCP frame, but I've no experience about this protocol so can't really say what would be useful. (11 Jan '17, 02:49) grahamb ♦ The dev build Version 2.3.0 (v2.3.0rc0-2014-gf8dc234) gave me exactly the output I was looking for. Thanks for the help. (12 Jan '17, 06:50) leon1234 |
We'll need a capture file to investigate. Can you share a capture in a publicly accessible spot, e.g. CloudShark, Google Drive, Dropbox etc.? Edit your question with a link to the capture.
Thanks. I've added the relevant dissections as well.