[ntar-workers] PCAP-NG / Interface ID size / Drops Counter size ?

[Guy Harris]

(I'm not sure if Hannes is on ntar-workers; if not, he might want to  
join....)

On Feb 21, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Gianluca Varenni wrote:

> My opinion is that we should add a new packet block to the spec,  
> similar to the current packet block:
>
>    0                   1                   2                   3
>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |                          Interface ID                         |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |                        Timestamp (High)                       |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |                        Timestamp (Low)                        |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

	...

If we're adding a new packet block to the spec, should the Timestamp  
(High) field be extended to 64 bits, or do we expect that this file  
format won't still be used in 2038?