[ih] 13 the unlucky number

[Paul Ruizendaal]

From Mike Muuss' archived pages:
https://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/ping.html

> On 11 Aug 2020, at 22:40, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks a lot for the information. I really enjoy reading this mailing list.
> 
> I will keep myself quiet and ask some occasional questions :-)
> 
> 
> Hugs,
> 
> 
> Alejandro,
> 
> 
> On 8/11/20 4:21 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>> 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,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history