Martijn Pieters <m...@python.org> added the comment:
This is related to #42937, the IPv4 private network list is not considering the whole of 192.0.0.0/24 to be private. RFC 5736 / 6890 reserved 192.0.0.0/24 for special purposes (private networks) and to date a few subnets of that network have received assignments. The ipaddress modules should use that subnet for any `is_private` test, and not just the subnets of that network that have received specific assignments. E.g. the list currently contains just 192.0.0.0/29 and 192.0.0.170/31, but as this bug report points out, 192.0.0.8/32 has since been added, as have 192.0.0.9/32 and 192.0.0.10/32. The IPv6 implementation *does* cover the whole reserved subnet (although it also includes 2 specific registrations, see the aforementioned #42937), it is just IPv4 that is inconsistent and incomplete here. ---------- nosy: +mjpieters _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42937> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
