Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?
From: Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 01:01:24 -0400
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu> wrote:
On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> 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? ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype? mmann78 (Sep 30)
- Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype? Evan Huus (Sep 30)
- Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype? Guy Harris (Sep 30)
- Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype? Evan Huus (Sep 30)
- Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype? Jeffrey Smith (Sep 30)
- Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype? Guy Harris (Sep 30)
- Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype? Evan Huus (Sep 30)