I'm working with http://svn.python.org/projects/python/trunk on Mac OS
X 10.6.1
using Apples xcode gcc 4.2.1.
When I run the following commands:
./configure --enable-framework --with-universal-archs=32-bit | tee
build.config.log
make clean all | tee build.make.log
I end up with a
- Masks are also 32- (128-) bit integers, which happen to have the
property that their leftmost N bits are all zero and the rest are all
one.
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.
IPv6 doesn't support
I don't think the RFCs forbid the zero address being used
RFC 1122 does: IP addresses are not permitted to have the value 0 or -1
for any of the Host-number, Network-number, or Subnet-
number fields (except in the special cases listed above).
RFC 3021 modifies this requirement, allowing the
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
2009/9/26 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de
I don't think the RFCs forbid the zero address being used
RFC 1122 does: IP addresses are not permitted to have the value 0 or -1
for any of the Host-number, Network-number, or Subnet-
number fields (except in the special cases listed above).
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM, DrKJam drk...@gmail.com wrote:
The current version of the PEP and reference implementation do not mention
or deal with IPv4 classful addressing (A, B, C, D and E). It would be good
to know if any of this (admittedly older yet no less important)
functionality
2009/9/26 Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM, DrKJam drk...@gmail.com wrote:
The current version of the PEP and reference implementation do not mention
or deal with IPv4 classful addressing (A, B, C, D and E). It would be good
to know if any of
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, DrKJam drk...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/26 Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM, DrKJam drk...@gmail.com wrote:
The current version of the PEP and reference implementation do not
mention or deal with IPv4 classful
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:44:45 am Martin v. Löwis wrote:
- Masks are also 32- (128-) bit integers, which happen to have the
property that their leftmost N bits are all zero and the rest
are all one.
As a side note, I would be in favor of dropping the concept of a mask
from the library,
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:23:14 pm Barry Scott wrote:
I've seen user interfaces accept 192.168.1.1/24 as a short cut
to set the ipaddr and netmask on an interface.
For that use being able to parse that string into an IP Address and
a Net Mask is what they want.
I think you're at least the
In article 90a90a3c-e037-4fca-95d2-a46a5c6dd...@barrys-emacs.org,
Barry Scott ba...@barrys-emacs.org wrote:
I'm working with http://svn.python.org/projects/python/trunk on Mac OS
X 10.6.1
using Apples xcode gcc 4.2.1.
When I run the following commands:
./configure
I again invite interested parties to continue this discussion on
ipaddr-py-...@googlegroups.com. we're pushing 250 messages on PEP
3144 at this point; well beyond what most folks would call a long
open-ended discussion.
anyway:
The current behaviour is confusing to me. For example:
netw1 =
I realize I'm late to this party, but this is just a naming issue, right?
For any network, there are two special addresses, one with the last
bits all zeros, one with the last bits all ones. We can call them A
and B, or network and broadcast, or zeros and ones, or whatever we
care. But their
Just four more days to propose a presentation!
Call for proposals -- PyCon 2010 -- http://us.pycon.org/2010/
===
Due date: October 1st, 2009
Want to showcase your skills as a Python Hacker? Want to have
hundreds of people see your talk
Peter Moody wrote:
I again invite interested parties to continue this discussion on
ipaddr-py-...@googlegroups.com. we're pushing 250 messages on PEP
3144 at this point; well beyond what most folks would call a long
open-ended discussion.
anyway:
The current behaviour is confusing to
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Moody wrote:
I again invite interested parties to continue this discussion on
ipaddr-py-...@googlegroups.com. we're pushing 250 messages on PEP
3144 at this point; well beyond what most folks would call a long
16 matches
Mail list logo
