[196168] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: RFC 1918 network range choices
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Sat Oct 7 12:27:53 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:39:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <zarafa.59d66ca3.70b6.6af482150405c159@mail01.showmeisp.net>
To: Jerry Cloe <jerry@jtcloe.net>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I have seen a number of versions of that in reading things people sent me a=
nd 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 a=
lso didn't exist=2E They sound good, but I'm not buying em=2E :-)
On October 5, 2017 1:32:19 PM EDT, Jerry Cloe <jerry@jtcloe=2Enet> 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=2E
>
>=C2=A0
>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=2E
>
>=C2=A0
>Time to start writing=C2=A0 out all the binary=2E
>
>
>=C2=A0
>-----Original message-----
>From:Jay R=2E Ashworth <jra@baylink=2Ecom>
>Sent:Thu 10-05-2017 09:41 am
>Subject:RFC 1918 network range choices
>To:North American Network Operators=E2=80=98 Group <nanog@nanog=2Eorg>;=
=20
>Does anyone have a pointer to an *authoritative* source on why
>
>10/8
>172=2E16/12 and
>192=2E168/16=20
>
>were the ranges chosen to enshrine in the RFC? =C2=A0Came up elsewhere, a=
nd
>I can't=20
>find a good citation either=2E
>
>To list or I'll summarize=2E
>
>Cheers,
>-- jra
>
>=C2=A0
--=20
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E
