Wireshark mailing list archives

Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:03:47 -0700


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.
___________________________________________________________________________
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)