Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

T32 and just tweak the dfilter grammar to recognize /## as a shortcut for integers generally. > > -Original Message- > From: Jeffrey Smith <whydo...@gmail.com> > To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Sent: Thu, Oct 1, 2015 1:46 am

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Evan Huus 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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

A pure netmask (without an associated address) is representable as just a UINT8. Would it be terrible to write `protocolXYZ.netmask == 24`? On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:59 PM, wrote: > There's a discussion in a patch review > (https://code.wireshark.org/review/10438/), that

[Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

There's a discussion in a patch review (https://code.wireshark.org/review/10438/), that I think should get more visibility. The question is "should an IPv4 netmask field be its own fieldtype?" The main problem being that netmasks are being treated as IPv4 fields and are attempted to be

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

RFC950: "Since the bits that identify the subnet are specified by a bitmask, they need not be adjacent in the address. However, we recommend that the subnet bits be contiguous and located as the most significant bits of the local address." So essentially any mask IS legal (even if not

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Guy Harris wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Evan Huus wrote: > >> A pure netmask (without an associated address) is representable as >> just a UINT8. Would it be terrible to write `protocolXYZ.netmask == >> 24`? > >