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-192-168-16-to-be-a-private-ip-address-class/785641 Thanks, Akshay. Cheers, -- jra ----- Original Message ----- > From: "jra" <[email protected]> > To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] 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
