[ih] 13 the unlucky number

[Alejandro Acosta]

uh, good question.

Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the 
answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983

On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be
> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on The
> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?"
>
> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those
> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever
> get connected to the operational Internet.
>
> /Jack Haverty
>
> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote:
>> 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,
>>>
>>>
>>>