nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918 network range choices
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 19:14:46 -0400
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jerry Cloe <jerry () jtcloe net> wrote:
Several years ago I remember seeing a mathematical justification for it, and I remember thinking at the time it made a lot of sense, but now I can't find it.
Hi Jerry, If there's special ASIC-friendly math here, beyond what was later generalized with CIDR, it's not obvious. 10.0: 0000 1010 0000 0000 172.16: 1010 1100 0001 0000 172.31: 1010 1100 0001 1111 192.168: 1100 0000 1010 1000 AFAIK, it was simply one range each from classes A, B and C. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Current thread:
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices John Kristoff (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Randy Bush (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Joe Klein (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Ryan Harden (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Daniel Karrenberg (Oct 06)
- Message not available
- RE: RFC 1918 network range choices Jay Ashworth (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices valdis . kletnieks (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Brian Kantor (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Joe Provo (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Steve Feldman (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Lyndon Nerenberg (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Michael Thomas (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Alain Hebert (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Owen DeLong (Oct 06)