[ih] RFC 1918 addresses

[Craig Partridge]

As I recall, 10/8 was because it was the only prefix still around of that
size (having until recently been the ARPANET's IP network number).  I
suspect similar reasons drove the other two, but don't know as I wasn't
close to this process.

Craig

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:42 AM, John Kristoff <jtk at depaul.edu> wrote:

> Elsewhere someone asked why the prefixes defined in RFC 1918 (10/8,
> 172.12/12, 192.168/16) were the codified private prefixes.  Does anyone
> know the definitive reason, if there was one, why these prefixes were
> selected over or instead of any other?
>
> Thank you,
>
> John
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>



-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
For Raytheon business, please email: craig. <craig at bbn.com>
partridge at raytheon.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20171006/7bce9493/attachment.htm>