Message393862
This is related to #42937, the IPv4 private network list is not considering the whole of 192.0.0.0/24 to be private.
RFC 5736 / 6890 reserved 192.0.0.0/24 for special purposes (private networks) and to date a few subnets of that network have received assignments. The ipaddress modules should use that subnet for any `is_private` test, and not just the subnets of that network that have received specific assignments.
E.g. the list currently contains just 192.0.0.0/29 and 192.0.0.170/31, but as this bug report points out, 192.0.0.8/32 has since been added, as have 192.0.0.9/32 and 192.0.0.10/32.
The IPv6 implementation *does* cover the whole reserved subnet (although it also includes 2 specific registrations, see the aforementioned #42937), it is just IPv4 that is inconsistent and incomplete here. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2021-05-18 09:15:33 | mjpieters | set | recipients:
+ mjpieters, cdirkx, CosmicKid |
2021-05-18 09:15:33 | mjpieters | set | messageid: <1621329333.77.0.312879587879.issue42937@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2021-05-18 09:15:33 | mjpieters | link | issue42937 messages |
2021-05-18 09:15:33 | mjpieters | create | |
|