Message 200967 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	pitrou
Recipients	christian.heimes, jcea, leim, macfreek, ncoghlan, pitrou, pmoody, python-dev, santoso.wijaya, terry.reedy
Date	2013-10-22.15:21:49
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1382455309.2.0.0904025486796.issue17400@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
Sorry for chiming in a bit late, but what's the rationale for including 100.64.0.0/10 in the "is_private" set, rather than only excluding it from the "is_global" set? The rationale for RFC 6598 is precisely that 100.64.0.0/10 is not private in the common sense, so it would deserve a different treatment in the ipaddress module as well.

Sorry for chiming in a bit late, but what's the rationale for including 100.64.0.0/10 in the "is_private" set, rather than *only* excluding it from the "is_global" set?

The rationale for RFC 6598 is precisely that 100.64.0.0/10 is *not* private in the common sense, so it would deserve a different treatment in the ipaddress module as well.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2013-10-22 15:21:49	pitrou	set	recipients: + pitrou, terry.reedy, jcea, ncoghlan, macfreek, christian.heimes, pmoody, santoso.wijaya, python-dev, leim
2013-10-22 15:21:49	pitrou	set	messageid: <1382455309.2.0.0904025486796.issue17400@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-10-22 15:21:49	pitrou	link	issue17400 messages
2013-10-22 15:21:49	pitrou	create