On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Evan Huus <eapa...@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-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
