192.168.0.1 why?

Why did you choose these numbers for the local network by default? 192.168, not 193.167
Just do not write that this is the standard and to throw the link on rfc. In nature this decision.
June 7th 19 at 15:43
5 answers
June 7th 19 at 15:45
Because there are a number of standard locations, designed for local networks. A document describing these addresses.

The authors of the document:
Network Working Group Y. Rekhter
Request for Comments: 1918 Cisco Systems
Obsoletes: 1627, 1597 B. Moskowitz
BCP: 5 Chrysler Corp.
Category: Best Current Practice D. Karrenberg
 RIPE NCC
 G. J. de Groot
 RIPE NCC
 E. Lear
 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
 February 1996
Attentively read the question. Minus you - hiram_Wunsch commented on June 7th 19 at 15:48
At the end of the document is the address and phone number. Call the authors. - orin.Runte commented on June 7th 19 at 15:51
June 7th 19 at 15:47
at least, they look beautiful in a binary form.
About 168 did not know :-)
Complement the answer: in the first truly - standard, and the second needed ranges under private address, so chose this one.
Besides him there are others:
10.0.0.0/8
172.16.0.0/12
As well there are other bands allocated to other purposes, known, for example:
127.0.0.0/8 - hiram_Wunsch commented on June 7th 19 at 15:50
June 7th 19 at 15:49
At the time of creation RFC1918, 192.168.x.x was the youngest of unoccupied range for the network (/16)

Just historically - and took the first address, with suitable unoccupied range.
June 7th 19 at 15:51
The response from the co-author of RFC1918)))
https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2017-Oct...

I saw somewhere the history of the allocation of addresses to the IANA. You can see what was free at the time of drafting the rfc in different classes of networks.
June 7th 19 at 15:53

Find more questions by tags IP