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

[pmoody]

pmoody added the comment:

is_private was, as you note, basically shorthand for is_RFC1918 (and is_RFC4193 for v6). It's not a particularly well-named method, but at the time that I wrote it (~5 years ago?), it did what I needed it to do.

I'm not sure what you mean by an 'is_natted()' method; there's nothing in particular preventing someone from natting a globally unique address. is_global() makes some sense to me, and it appears that I most likely have to update is_reserved, but I don't understand is_forwardable().

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue17400>
_______________________________________