RFC 1918 network range choices
dfk at ripe.net
Fri Oct 6 18:34:30 UTC 2017
On 05/10/2017 07:40, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Does anyone have a pointer to an *authoritative* source on why
> 172.16/12 and
> 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)
More information about the NANOG