RFC 1918 network range choices

Jay Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Thu Oct 5 17:39:04 CST 2017


I have seen a number of versions of that in reading things people sent me and things I found myself, and all of them seem to depend on ASICs that didn't exist at the time the ranges were chosen, and probably also CIDR which also didn't exist. They sound good, but I'm not buying em. :-)

On October 5, 2017 1:32:19 PM EDT, Jerry Cloe <jerry at 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.
>
> 
>I think the goal was to make it easier for routers to dump private
>ranges based on simple binary math, but not sure that concept ever got
>widely used.
>
> 
>Time to start writing  out all the binary.
>
>
> 
>-----Original message-----
>From:Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
>Sent:Thu 10-05-2017 09:41 am
>Subject:RFC 1918 network range choices
>To:North American Network Operators‘ Group <nanog at nanog.org>; 
>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
>
> 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


More information about the NANOG mailing list