Changed behavior for netifaces.ifaddresses AF_INET6 in **python3-netifaces-0.10.9**

[schoksey]

Hi,

Can someone please confirm if there is a regression between python-netifaces-0.10.4 and python3-netifaces-0.10.9 where
netifaces.ifaddresses() on AF_NET6 returns the v6 netmask entry with a the CIDR. Is this by design, and if so why is it
not consistent with AF_NET for the v4 netmasks?

Changed behavior seen for AF_INET6  in **python3-netifaces-0.10.9**
Python 3.6.8 (default, Dec  5 2019, 15:45:45)
[GCC 8.3.1 20191121 (Red Hat 8.3.1-5)] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import netifaces
>>> netifaces.ifaddresses('br_mgmt')[netifaces.AF_INET6][0].get('netmask')
'ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff::/64'
>>> netifaces.ifaddresses('br_mgmt')[netifaces.AF_INET][0].get('netmask')
'255.255.255.0'

Behavior seen for AF_INET6  in **python-netifaces-0.10.4**
Python 2.7.5 (default, Feb 26 2020, 04:21:27)
[GCC 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-36)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import netifaces
>>> netifaces.ifaddresses('br_mgmt')[netifaces.AF_INET6][0].get('netmask')
'ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff::'
>>> netifaces.ifaddresses('br_mgmt')[netifaces.AF_INET][0].get('netmask')
'255.255.255.0'

Would appreciate if someone can please confirm if this is expected and the inconsistency between v4 and v6 in the netifaces 10.9 version.

Thanks,
Sharmin