Open steinybot opened 4 years ago
IP adresses in Rfc5737 are reserved for documentation usage. Rfc6890 list address blocks for different purposes, except public routing, like benchmarking, documentation, private routing, ...
IMHO, address blocks not involved in private or public networks, if they come to be managed by this library, should be isolated in a separated object, something like SpecificPurposesIpAddressBlocks
.
But the only use case I see is to exclude those specific-purpose IPs, you can already do that by combining both public and private types. So I don't think it worth the effort just for the completeness.
Was there a particular reason behind the RFCs that were chosen in https://github.com/fthomas/refined/pull/356?
I found that
PrivateNetwork
did not match what I expected it to.The addresses in rfc5737 seem like they should never be routed to:
There is also a bug in
Rfc1918ClassBPrivateSpec
. It should start at172.16.0.0
not172.15.0.0
. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918#section-3I'm by no means an expert but it seems like adding types for rfc6890 would be a better way to go.
Without digging into each RFC I suspect what most people would want is any address which is listed in rfc6890 as a valid destination IP address and maybe the loopback addresses.
Thoughts?