[196128] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1918 network range choices
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Akshay Kumar via NANOG)
Fri Oct 6 03:22:54 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1891095257.48826.1507214457920.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:53:54 -0400
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
From: Akshay Kumar via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: Akshay Kumar <akshay@mongodb.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
https://superuser.com/questions/784978/why-did-the-ietf-specifically-choose-192-168-16-to-be-a-private-ip-address-class/785641
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Jay R. Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> 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@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
>
