[ih] 13 the unlucky number

[Alejandro Acosta]

Hello All,

   First, really thanks for your comments.

   I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should 
have done this before sending the email.

   As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not 
appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX)

   However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in 
RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC 776.


Thanks again & sorry for the noise.


Alejandro,


On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote:
>   Alejandro,
> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.  I knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a superstitious person.  I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer.
> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie
>
>      On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>   
>   Hello list,
>
>     I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place to ask.
>
>     During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When
> reading it I noticed the following:
>
> {...}
>
>         009.rrr.rrr.rrr   BRAGG-PR      Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM]
>         010.rrr.rrr.rrr   ARPANET       ARPANET [17,1,VGC]
>         011.rrr.rrr.rrr   UCLNET        University College London     [PK]
>         012.rrr.rrr.rrr   CYCLADES      CYCLADES [VGC]
>         013.rrr.rrr.rrr                 Unassigned [JBP]
>         014.rrr.rrr.rrr   TELENET       TELENET [VGC]
>         015.rrr.rrr.rrr   EPSS          British Post Office EPSS      [PK]
>         016.rrr.rrr.rrr   DATAPAC       DATAPAC [VGC]
>         017.rrr.rrr.rrr   TRANSPAC      TRANSPAC [VGC]
>         018.rrr.rrr.rrr   LCSNET        MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2]
>
> {...}
>
>
>     As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some subsequent
> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013
> was later assigned to XEROX-NET.
>
>     I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Alejandro,
>
>
>