What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#2This explains the reason private ranges were designated but not why 192.168.0.0 in particular within the Class C range was designated to be private. Does anyone know why that number in particular was chosen?
Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#3I still learned about net classes, subnetting and supernetting in 2003, to me it was how networks worked till a few yeara ago :D
Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#4This explains the reason private ranges were designated but not why 192.168.0.0 in particular within the Class C range was designated to be private. Does anyone know why that number in particular was chosen?
It may be lost to history - it's defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918#section-3. I wonder if the people involved in the document are still around to ask.
Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#5This explains the reason private ranges were designated but not why 192.168.0.0 in particular within the Class C range was designated to be private. Does anyone know why that number in particular was chosen?
192.168 = 11000000 10101000
Other than the class portion of the addressing, this is no more significant than when engineers use A5 and 5A for markers (1010 0101 0101 1010).
Or, so it would seem. :)
Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#6This explains the reason private ranges were designated but not why 192.168.0.0 in particular within the Class C range was designated to be private. Does anyone know why that number in particular was chosen?
Found this link in one of the responses on that page:
https://superuser.com/questions/784978/why-did-the-ietf-spec...
Similarly, I expect Postel picked 192.168 because, at the time he made the
choice, it was the next available, or nearly the next available, network to be
assigned from the former Class C space. This probably can't be proved one way
or the other, but the pace of address assignments shown in the RFCs strongly
suggests that they would have been in this general vicinity around 1993-1994
when the assignments were made. (Addresses in 192.159 were being assigned in
1992. No dates are available for assignments in 192.160-192.167 as these were
at some point reallocated to RIPE.)Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#7This explains the reason private ranges were designated but not why 192.168.0.0 in particular within the Class C range was designated to be private. Does anyone know why that number in particular was chosen?
Found this link in one of the responses on that page: https://superuser.com/questions/784978/why-did-the-ietf-spec... Similarly, I expect Postel picked 192.168 because, at the time he made the choice, it was the next available, or nearly the next available, network to be assigned from the former Class C space. This probably can't be proved one way or the other, but the pace of address assignments shown in the RFCs st…
To be clear, the 192 part is the lowest "Class C" network prefix. The 168 part was the arbitrary time-dependent part from the allocation database.
Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Found this link in one of the responses on that page: https://superuser.com/questions/784978/why-did-the-ietf-spec... Similarly, I expect Postel picked 192.168 because, at the time he made the choice, it was the next available, or nearly the next available, network to be assigned from the former Class C space. This probably can't be proved one way or the other, but the pace of address assignments shown in the RFCs st…
To be clear, the 192 part is the lowest "Class C" network prefix. The 168 part was the arbitrary time-dependent part from the allocation database.
Correct, thanks for making that explicit.
Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#9This explains the reason private ranges were designated but not why 192.168.0.0 in particular within the Class C range was designated to be private. Does anyone know why that number in particular was chosen?
It may be lost to history - it's defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918#section-3 . I wonder if the people involved in the document are still around to ask.
Yes, many of them are still alive and even still working in the field. Some have blogs.
Re: What's the history behind 192.168.1.1?
#10Something I never understood is why people choose 192.168.1.1 for private networks.
Being all the other factors equal, isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?