[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RFC 1918 network range choices
- Subject: RFC 1918 network range choices
- From: feldman at twincreeks.net (Steve Feldman)
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:52:54 -0700
- In-reply-to: <CAP-guGWkeAzRXbxGtmAf5-4zj=dN9aQtG3NTqW8RGwq4PDzC2Q@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAP-guGWkeAzRXbxGtmAf5-4zj=dN9aQtG3NTqW8RGwq4PDzC2Q@mail.gmail.com>
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 4:14 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jerry Cloe <jerry at jtcloe.net> wrote:
>
>> Several years ago I remember seeing a mathematical justification for it,
>> and I remember thinking at the time it made a lot of sense, but now I can't
>> find it.
>>
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> If there's special ASIC-friendly math here, beyond what was later
> generalized with CIDR, it's not obvious.
>
> 10.0: 0000 1010 0000 0000
>
> 172.16: 1010 1100 0001 0000
>
> 172.31: 1010 1100 0001 1111
>
> 192.168: 1100 0000 1010 1000
>
> AFAIK, it was simply one range each from classes A, B and C.
As mentioned in one of the links posted earlier, 10.0.0.0/8 was the original ARPANET class A assignment. (See RFC 970, which brings back a lot of memories.) Once the ARPANET was shut down in 1990 that block was no longer used, so it became available for reuse in RFC1918.
I have a vague recollection of parts of 192.168.0.0/16 being used as default addresses on early Sun systems. If that's actually true, it might explain that choice.
Steve