RFC 1918 network range choices
nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net
Thu Oct 5 22:47:42 CST 2017
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:04:42PM -0400, valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:39:04 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> > 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. :-)
> Can't speak t the ASICs, but CIDR existed, even if your vendor was behind the
> times and still calling stuff class A/B/C. (Such nonsense persisted well into
> this century). Check the dates...
To be fair, the actual formal allocation was 1994 with rfc1597.
1918 was the reconciliation of 1597 and 1627 (ISTR the division
was also why we saw 1796 and 1814).
The practice had been used for a while before the codification
but I don't have a good citation. IAB minutes of 1992 speak of
the practice and the tut-tutting of not wanting people to do
it, but not citing specific numbers and math.
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
More information about the NANOG