>>> I think using .network and .broadcast are pretty well understood to be the >>> [0] and [-1] of the network address block. I don't think we want to start >>> creating new terms or access patterns here. >>> >>> +1 on leaving .network and .broadcast as-is (including returning a >>> IPvXAddress object). >>> >> -1. I think 'network.number' or 'network.zero' is a lot clearer than >> 'network.network'. Maybe '.broadcast' would be okay, as long as it *can* be >> adjusted for those unusual, or maybe even only hypothetical, networks where >> it is not the [-1]. > Real life example: network with a /31 mask. > There are only two hosts: 0 and 1 > first host configures the other's host as broadcast address and vice versa. > NOTE - broadcasts are different here!
This is RFC 3021. IIUC, it does not support directed broadcast; only link-local broadcast can be used on that link. So ISTM that .broadcast should raise an exception on a /31 network. Any installation that configures the partner as the broadcast address is broken (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). > Another real life examples include /32 networks on PPP. Just a point-to-point. > No need for broadcasts and networks, a host just have one IP address and > send all traffic via point-to-point link, no addressing is required there. > This is a working dialup configuration, it works for me, it works for you, > probably. > It is not weird, it is common, it is used for PPPoE, for ADSL, for dialup. So where is that defined? Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
