[ih] 13 the unlucky number

[Jack Haverty]

Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before
that.    When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running,
Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us
heartburn.   I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting
about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and
explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".  This was
probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.  I don't know that Dave invented
"ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it.

/Jack


On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote:
> 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,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>