[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ih] What is the origin of the private network address 192.168.*.*?
And using 127.0.0.0 or any of other other well known 'martians' would
have required a number of legacy systems to change, as the martians
table was well established by then.
Louis Mamakos wrote:
> I think that I recall at the time there was desire to have class-A,
> class-B and class-C private address space for private networks. I'm not
> sure where the lined up against the transition to CIDR-style prefixes,
> but there were a considerable number of "legacy" systems at the time
> that had classfull IP addresses wired into their code.
> As Craig pointed out, net 10 was easy, as it had just been recently
> decommissioned. Perhaps the class-B and class-C prefixes just happened
> to be where the IANA was in the allocation process at the time?
> Louis Mamakos
> On Sep 10, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> The excellent Q&A site Server Fault has an interesting question, which
>> may interest some persons here. Answer directly on Server Fault (you
>> need to log in with an OpenID identifier) or post here and I'll write
>> it back to Server Fault.
>> I had a smart (but non-technical) user ask me today:
>> Why did they pick 192.168.. for a private network address?
>> The only answer I could come up with is because 192 = 11000000 in
>> binary. And 168 is 10101000 in binary. Both of which are kind of cool
>> Is there a real historical reason for that particular choice of
>> numbers? Why not 127.127..? Or 128.128..?
>> Similar question for 10.0.0.0 and 172.16.0.0