RFC 1918 network range choices
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Thu Oct 5 15:03:58 UTC 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