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 anudeepballa07
Recipients anudeepballa07, eric.smith, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2020-09-20.18:57:03
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAFjuGyd7f03pXegd5meTx_W__WVfaC39xKhKmQoYsoY2YBH1_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1600621448.15.0.358922529503.issue41820@roundup.psfhosted.org>
Content
That was the whole point I was trying to make that there were no references
that state .00 is equivalent to .0 and  if you would try any IP validator
or would check by any means you would find that the IP address is invalid.

I truly understand the point that you are trying to make but if my program
says a invalid IP address as valid I don't see how that helps.

I have checked almost every online IP validators to give me the same
INVALID as result for 172.16.254.00 while they say 172.16.254.0 is VALID.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 12:04, Eric V. Smith <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Eric V. Smith <eric@trueblade.com> added the comment:
>
> Please do not include screen shots in bug reports. They've unfriendly to
> people who use screen readers or other accessibility software. Instead,
> please copy and paste (or retype, if needed) the text into the comment
> section.
>
> > '172.16.254.00' *is not* equivalent to '172.16.254.0'
>
> Do you have an RFC or other document that makes that clear? I've never
> seen an IP address library that makes a distinction between '00' and '0'.
> But I'm happy to learn something new, if you can point to a standard.
>
> If this were going to be an error, it would be in the call to
> ipaddress.ip_address() or its equivalent. It would raise ValueError, like
> it does for other strings that don't represent valid addresses. But for
> backward compatibility reasons, unless there's a standard that explicitly
> disallows .00, I doubt we'd change the code to raise an exception. And even
> if there were a standard that says .00 is not a valid address, I'd be
> reluctant to make a change here. We could potentially break people's code,
> and we'd need a very good reason to do that.
>
> Also, is this causing you a practical problem? Is there somewhere you're
> getting a .00 address and you'd like to treat it as being invalid?
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue41820>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2020-09-20 18:57:04anudeepballa07setrecipients: + anudeepballa07, eric.smith, serhiy.storchaka
2020-09-20 18:57:04anudeepballa07linkissue41820 messages
2020-09-20 18:57:03anudeepballa07create