nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918 network range choices
From: Daniel Karrenberg <dfk () ripe net>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 11:34:30 -0700
On 05/10/2017 07:40, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Does anyone have a pointer to an *authoritative* source on why 10/8 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 were the ranges chosen to enshrine in the RFC? ...
The RFC explains the reason why we chose three ranges from "Class A,B & C" respectively: CIDR had been specified but had not been widely implemented. There was a significant amount of equipment out there that still was "classful". As far as I recall the choice of the particular ranges were as follows: 10/8: the ARPANET had just been turned off. One of us suggested it and Jon considered this a good re-use of this "historical" address block. We also suspected that "net 10" might have been hard coded in some places, so re-using it for private address space rather than in inter-AS routing might have the slight advantage of keeping such silliness local. 172.16/12: the lowest unallocated /12 in class B space. 192.168/16: the lowest unallocated /16 in class C block 192/8. In summary: IANA allocated this space just as it would have for any other purpose. As the IANA, Jon was very consistent unless there was a really good reason to be creative. Daniel (co-author of RFC1918)
Current thread:
- RE: RFC 1918 network range choices, (continued)
- 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 Jay Ashworth (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices William Herrin (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)