Dave M. On 27 Sep 2009, at 07:56, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> 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 > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/drkjam%40gmail.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4