Re: Bad FCS flag
David Young <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.netbsd.radiotap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 10:25:24PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry I haven't actually updated my proposal, had other stuff.
>
> Here's a representation of the non-conflict we're running into with RX
> flags:
>
> * wireshark defines that bit 6 in field 1 ("flags") means "bad FCS".
Johannes,
TCPDump uses this bit, too. I think that we are stuck with it.
> * the unofficial RX-flags stuff defines that bit 0 in "RX flags" means
> "bad FCS"
Any users of this bit?
I think that TCPDump & Wireshark probably out-number the radiotap
interpreters who use the rx-flags bit :-), but I don't know how many
drivers there are who write headers with "bad FCS" in the rx flags bit.
Dave
--
David Young OJC Technologies
[email protected] Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 ext 24