Feature #11666: IPAddr#private? - Ruby - Ruby Issue Tracking System

Custom queries

Backport 3.2
Backport 3.3
Backport 3.4
bugs: unassigned
DevMeeting
matz
Open issues with attachment
Windows

Actions

Copy link

Feature #11666

closed

IPAddr#private?

Added by Glass_saga (Masaki Matsushita) over 9 years ago. Updated over 7 years ago.

Status:

Closed

Assignee:

knu (Akinori MUSHA)

Target version:

[ruby-core:71384]

Description

I propose a new feature: IPAddr#private?.

Example:

IPAddr.new("192.168.1.1").private? #=> true.

Files

patch.diff (1.58 KB) patch.diff

Glass_saga (Masaki Matsushita), 11/08/2015 07:19 AM

Related issues 1 (0 open — 1 closed)

Has duplicate Ruby - Feature #10912: Add method(s) to IPAddr for determining whether an address is link local

Closed

knu (Akinori MUSHA)

Actions

Issue # Delay: days Cancel

History
Notes
Property changes
Associated revisions

Actions

Copy link

#1 [ruby-core:71406]

Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) over 9 years ago

Accepted. But we have naming issue. private? or private_addr? or something else?
Any comments?

Matz.

Actions

Copy link

#2 [ruby-core:71492]

Updated by Glass_saga (Masaki Matsushita) over 9 years ago

I think private? is better than private_addr? because private_addr? seems to be redundant in following code:

IPAddr.new("192.168.1.1").private_addr?

Actions

Copy link

#3 [ruby-core:73821]

Updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE) over 9 years ago

Status changed from Open to Assigned
Assignee changed from Glass_saga (Masaki Matsushita) to knu (Akinori MUSHA)

The maintainer is knu.

feature issues
- conflict with private visibility
  - “private?” is different from visivility
- Behavior when address family is IPv6
  - nil? false?
  - or treat link-local, site-local (deprecated), unique-local as true?
- Naming differencies with Addrinfo
The name “ipv4_private?” is clear that the method returns false on IPv6 addresses.

Actions

Copy link

#4 [ruby-core:74016]

Updated by herwin (Herwin W) over 9 years ago

IPv6 has a private range too: d00::/8 (RFC 4193)

Also, there are more IP ranges that have been reserved for special use (there's an overview on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses). I think it would be better to make 1 method that can return a pre-defined symbol of that range if the IP address is in that range. Otherwise, there would be an explosion in the number of IP addresses.

Actions

Copy link

#5 [ruby-core:74106]

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) over 9 years ago

As far as I understand RFC4193 never defines its range being "private". There also are other private-ish address ranges e.g. fd00::/8. And what about v4-mapped v6 addresses? IPv6's situation is complicated (at least to me). I'd suggest OP to leave IPv6 situations untouched.

Actions

Copy link