[157015] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv4 address length technical design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Wed Oct 3 15:12:43 2012
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "'Sadiq Saif'" <sadiq@asininetech.com>,
"'Chris Campbell'" <chris@ctcampbell.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABSLv--2C_Y8XR4NJ21kbg8vv1E4Pkmhg=rZHEUxvS-YEP5p=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:11:05 -0700
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: alh-ietf@tndh.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Sadiq Saif [mailto:sadiq@asininetech.com] wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell <chris@ctcampbell.com>
> wrote:
> > Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the =
choice of 32
> bits for an IPv4 address?
> >
> > Cheers.
>=20
> I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 - =
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791
Actually that was preceded by RFC 760, which in turn was a derivative of =
IEN 123. I believe the answer to the original question is partially =
available on a series of pages starting at : =
http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/default1101.htm=20
IEN 2 is likely to be of particular interest ...=20
