Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3144: IP Address Manipulation Library for the Python Standard Library
Peter, I would like to apologise if I have caused you any offense. Please can we put the animosity behind us and stick to pulling together the best IP library possible as part of this PEP? Regards, Dave M. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3144 review.
On 17 Sep 2009, at 15:40, Peter Moody wrote: On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:26 AM, DrKJam wrote: Please can we have the following RFCs added to the references section that cover many of the aspects covered by this PEP? RFC 791 - Internet Protocol RFC 1918 - Address Allocation for Private Internets RFC 3330 - Special-Use IPv4 Addresses RFC 4291 - IPv6 Addressing Architecture RFC 4632 - Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Sure, can you give me an idea of what specifically you're looking to the rfc's to clarify? simply adding 5 rfc's to the the PEP wouldn't seem to enhance its readability. I would hope that these RFCs form the technical basis upon which much of this library depends. Dave M. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-dev%40hda3.com ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3144 review.
Dave M. On 27 Sep 2009, at 07:56, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: As a side note, I would be in favor of dropping the concept of a mask from the library, and only support a prefix length. -1 IPv6 doesn't support masks at all, and even for IPv4, I think there are conventions (if not RFCs) against using them in a way that does not correspond to a prefix length. Then the module should only support netmasks of the form (say) '255.255.255.224' (equivalent to "/27"), and reject those like "255.3.255.255". It currently accepts them. Many applications still display netmasks in dot-quad form, and I would be terribly annoyed if I had to count the bits myself before passing it to IPv4Address. I wouldn't ask for that: it should certainly be possible to supply masks. However, I would want to reject masks that don't correspond to a prefix, and have only the prefix length in the internal representation. +1 on rejection of netmasks without direct CIDR prefix equivalents. AFAIK Cisco routers accept them but I don't see how they would be useful in practice (unless someone can demonstrate their need for this). Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/drkjam%40gmail.com ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
