Message200967
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. |
|
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 | |
|