Message184260
| Author |
leim |
| Recipients |
christian.heimes, jcea, leim, ncoghlan, pmoody, santoso.wijaya, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2013年03月15日.21:25:15 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAHJJ-B+CAuCyjrWN295rk+pDWXp_-KuPM=xUJGif36Wz2tUbOA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1363376096.19.0.935891020609.issue17400@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
is_private should return true for all prefixes that are intended for
*private* use, hence it should include rfc1918 and rfc6598. rfc6598
stipulates 100.64.0.0/10
On 16 March 2013 06:34, pmoody <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> pmoody added the comment:
>
> Is the request that is_private should return true for all
> reserved/non-routable addresses? The docstrings refer to specific rfcs
> which don't cover most of the addresses listed in the wikipedia page. I
> haven't done a lot of network programming in the last couple of years, so
> what do folks think the least surprising result here would be?
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17400>
> _______________________________________
> |
|