Dave M.
On 27 Sep 2009, at 07:56, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@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@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/drkjam%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________
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
