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

Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
From: Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:03:47 -0700
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.