The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore". This seems semi-authoritative, though, and probably as close as we're going to get: https://superuser.com/questions/784978/why-did-the-ietf-specifically-choose-... Thanks, Akshay. Cheers, -- jra ----- Original Message -----
From: "jra" <jra@baylink.com> To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 10:40:57 AM Subject: RFC 1918 network range choices
Does anyone have a pointer to an *authoritative* source on why
10/8 172.16/12 and 192.168/16
were the ranges chosen to enshrine in the RFC? Came up elsewhere, and I can't find a good citation either.
To list or I'll summarize.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
-- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274