Closed brettdh closed 6 years ago
Actually, it seems like the testutils.py test covers this, after I update the base64 string to swap those fields.
This should already have been fixed in the lastest release...
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Brett Higgins notifications@github.com wrote:
Actually, it seems like the testutils.py test covers this, after I update the base64 string to swap those fields.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/britram/python-ipfix/issues/15#issuecomment-58704842.
I guess it wasn't? master
has the same code in these spots.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Brian Trammell notifications@github.com wrote:
This should already have been fixed in the lastest release... On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Brett Higgins notifications@github.com wrote:
Actually, it seems like the testutils.py test covers this, after I update the base64 string to swap those fields.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/britram/python-ipfix/issues/15#issuecomment-58704842.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/britram/python-ipfix/issues/15#issuecomment-58740148
Oops. 0f2b491 on develop, not merged back. Thanks for the catch.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Brett Higgins notifications@github.com wrote:
I guess it wasn't?
master
has the same code in these spots.On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Brian Trammell notifications@github.com
wrote:
This should already have been fixed in the lastest release... On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Brett Higgins notifications@github.com
wrote:
Actually, it seems like the testutils.py test covers this, after I update the base64 string to swap those fields.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/britram/python-ipfix/issues/15#issuecomment-58704842>.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/britram/python-ipfix/issues/15#issuecomment-58740148
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/britram/python-ipfix/issues/15#issuecomment-58748489.
Ah, I see. It looks like the 0.9.7 release (just this fix, as far as I can tell, but a few more commits including the version bump) was not merged to master either.
It would definitely be good to see the 0.9.7 release merged to the master branch.
When I send IPFIX constructed with
The value recorded as the seqno is actually the export timestamp, and vice versa. I found the relevant code in message.py, in
MessageBuffer.to_bytes
, I see the following in wireshark:MessageBuffer.to_bytes
:As expected,
sequence
precedesexport_epoch
in thepack_into
call. This is also the case withread_message
:Wireshark's expectations match RFC 7011.
I'm fixing this (and adding a test) in my 2.7 branch (private for the moment). I'd be happy to cherry-pick those changes into a pull request when they're done -- or I can hand that off for now; either way is fine.