[issue17400] ipaddress.is_private needs to take into account of rfc6598

2013-03-15 Thread Lei Miao
Lei Miao added the comment: is_private should return true for all prefixes that are intended for *private* use, hence it should include rfc1918 and rfc6598. rfc6598 stipulates 100.64.0.0/10 On 16 March 2013 06:34, pmoody rep...@bugs.python.org wrote: pmoody added the comment

[issue17400] ipaddress.is_private needs to take into account of rfc6598

2013-03-12 Thread Lei Miao
Lei Miao added the comment: Thanks Peter. On 13 March 2013 03:35, pmoody rep...@bugs.python.org wrote: pmoody added the comment: I don't see anyway to actually assign this bug to myself, but I'll get a patch for this. -- nosy: +pmoody

[issue17400] ipaddress.is_private needs to take into account of rfc6598

2013-03-11 Thread Lei Miao
New submission from Lei Miao: Currently: ipaddress.IPv4Network('100.64.1.0/24').is_private == False Given RFC6598, 100.64.0.0/10 is now approved for use as CGN space, and also for rfc1918-like private usage. Could the code be altered so that is_private will return true for 100.64.0.0/10