RFC 1918 network range choices

Jay R. Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Thu Oct 5 15:03:58 CST 2017


The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore".

This seems semi-authoritative, though, and probably as close as we're
going to get:

https://superuser.com/questions/784978/why-did-the-ietf-specifically-choose-192-168-16-to-be-a-private-ip-address-class/785641

Thanks, Akshay.

Cheers,
-- jra

----- Original Message -----
> From: "jra" <jra at baylink.com>
> To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 10:40:57 AM
> Subject: RFC 1918 network range choices

> 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?  Came up elsewhere, and I can't
> find a good citation either.
> 
> To list or I'll summarize.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274


More information about the NANOG mailing list