[196171] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: RFC 1918 network range choices
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?Q?Jerry_Cloe?=)
Sat Oct 7 14:07:54 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?utf-8?Q?Jerry_Cloe?= <jerry@jtcloe.net>
To: =?utf-8?Q?North_American_Network_Operators=27_Group?= <nanog@nanog.org>,
=?utf-8?Q?Jay_R=2E_Ashworth?= <jra@baylink.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:32:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1891095257.48826.1507214457920.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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.=0D=0A=0D=0A=C2=A0=0D=0AI 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.=0D=0A=0D=0A=C2=A0=0D=0ATime to st=
art writing=C2=A0 out all the binary.=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=C2=A0=0D=0A-----O=
riginal message-----=0D=0AFrom:Jay R. Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>=0D=0ASen=
t:Thu 10-05-2017 09:41 am=0D=0ASubject:RFC 1918 network range choices=0D=0A=
To:North American Network Operators=E2=80=98 Group <nanog@nanog.org>;=20=0D=
=0ADoes anyone have a pointer to an *authoritative* source on why=0D=0A=0D=
=0A10/8=0D=0A172.16/12 and=0D=0A192.168/16=20=0D=0A=0D=0Awere the ranges =
chosen to enshrine in the RFC=3F =C2=A0Came up elsewhere, and I can't=20=0D=
=0Afind a good citation either.=0D=0A=0D=0ATo list or I'll summarize.=0D=0A=
=0D=0ACheers,=0D=0A-- jra=0D=0A=0D=0A=C2=A0=0D=0A
