Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
From: Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 01:01:24 -0400
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> A pure netmask (without an associated address) is representable as
>> just a UINT8. Would it be terrible to write `protocolXYZ.netmask ==
>> 24`?
>
> Some are sent over the wire as a 32-bit mask, which could, conceivably, have holes in the middle.

Right, so I guess a UINT32, with some sort of dfilter syntax shortcut
for "/x" == (2^x)-1?