Re: Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

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