[ih] 13 the unlucky number

[Clem Cole]

Jack, I believe one of the first implementations was Mike Muuss of BRL

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:22 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> 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
>