[ih] Internet addressing history section

[Dave Taht]

Grant Taylor <internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 02/13/2019 08:57 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>> Anyway, although I can add a lot more to the arpanet portion of the 
>> history section, and probably will, my current working draft of the 
>> history section of this document is now up here:
>> 
>> https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt#L117
>> 
>> Feel free to make suggestions for more (or less!) content, comment as to 
>> my mental state, ancestry, naivety, and overall correctness of the cites - 
>> I note that the last cite I added today was rfc1925, which really should 
>> get cited more often.
>
> Should the test-networks and / or link-local be included in the martian 
> lists?
>
> 169.254.0.0/16
> 192.0.2.0/24
> 198.51.100.0/24
> 203.0.113.0/24

I put them in. thx

>
> Is the benchmark network, 198.18.0.0/15, still used for such?  Or could 
> it also be reclaimed?

I have no idea to what extent it is still used. Most test and benchmark
networks today merely leverage rfc1918, so yes, I think it could be
reclaimed. 

It's a small percentage play compared to 240/4, 0/8, or 232/5.

>
> Aside:  Is there a reason that you're using the octothorpe (#) instead 
> of the section symbol (§) when citing RFC sections?

ascii.