[ih] Internet addressing history section

[Scott O. Bradner]

there are a number of benchmarking testers that use the address ranges assigned for that purpose - 
see RFC 2544 

C.2.2 Protocol Addresses

   Two sets of addresses must be defined: first the addresses assigned
   to the router ports, and second the address that are to be used in
   the frames themselves and in the routing updates.

   The network addresses 192.18.0.0 through 198.19.255.255 are have been
   assigned to the BMWG by the IANA for this purpose.  This assignment
   was made to minimize the chance of conflict in case a testing device
   were to be accidentally connected to part of the Internet.  The
   specific use of the addresses is detailed below.


Scott

> On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Dave Taht <dave at taht.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______
> 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.