Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Classful network

A classful network is a scheme for dividing IPv4 address space into fixed classes (A, B, C, D, and E) based on the leading bits of the 32-bit address, which determine the boundary between the network prefix and host identifier, enabling straightforward routing without explicit subnet masks.^[1] Introduced in the original Internet Protocol specification, this approach allocated large blocks of addresses to organizations based on anticipated needs, with Class A providing up to 16,777,214 hosts per network, Class B up to 65,534, and Class C up to 254, while Classes D and E were reserved for multicast and experimental purposes, respectively.^[1]^[2] Developed in the late 1970s and formalized in 1981, classful addressing supported the early growth of the ARPANET and nascent Internet by simplifying address management and routing table entries, as routers could infer the network mask from the address class alone.^[1] However, its rigidity led to significant inefficiencies: organizations often received more addresses than needed (e.g., a Class B block for mid-sized networks wasted over 90% of space), contributing to rapid IPv4 exhaustion by the early 1990s and explosive growth in global routing tables.^[2]^[3] By 1993, classful networking was largely supplanted by Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR), which introduced variable-length subnet masking (VLSM) to allow flexible prefix lengths and hierarchical aggregation, conserving addresses and scaling routing more effectively.^[3] Although deprecated in core Internet protocols like BGP-4, remnants of classful logic persist in some legacy systems and private networks, but modern deployments universally rely on classless methods for efficiency.^[4]^[3]

History and Development

Origins in Early Internet Protocols

The development of classful network addressing emerged in the 1970s and 1980s as the ARPANET expanded from a small experimental packet-switched network to a more complex system interconnecting multiple diverse networks, necessitating scalable addressing beyond the host-specific schemes of its precursors.^[5] Initially, the ARPANET relied on the Network Control Protocol (NCP), implemented between 1971 and 1972, which used a flat 8-bit addressing structure limited to identifying hosts within individual Interface Message Processors (IMPs), restricting scalability as the number of connected sites grew beyond a few dozen.^[6] This approach, while sufficient for a single-network environment, proved inadequate for inter-network communication, as it lacked mechanisms to distinguish between different networks, leading to inefficiencies in resource sharing and routing.^[7] Key influences on classful addressing included early proposals for hierarchical structures to manage the proliferation of network numbers, as outlined in the seminal 1974 paper by Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn, which introduced a uniform addressing scheme for packet intercommunication across heterogeneous networks.^[7] Their design allocated 8 bits for a network identifier and 16 bits for host or process identification within that network, aiming to support up to 256 networks while enabling gateways to route based on network prefixes rather than individual hosts, thus averting a routing table explosion from flat, host-centric addressing in TCP/IP precursors.^[7] This hierarchical approach addressed the core problem of flat addressing—where every host required a unique global identifier, straining router memory and processing as ARPANET's host count exceeded hundreds—by providing a simple, fixed division that aggregated hosts under network IDs for efficient scalability.^[5] A pivotal event was Jon Postel's role as the inaugural RFC Editor and de facto manager of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), where he authored and edited early RFCs that defined the address space division. In RFC 790 ("Assigned Numbers," 1981), Postel documented the initial allocation of protocol parameters, including the 32-bit IP address structure with network and local portions, building directly on the Cerf-Kahn framework to accommodate growing demands.^[8] Complementing this, RFC 791 ("Internet Protocol," 1981), also edited by Postel, formalized the classful system as a straightforward alternative for hierarchical addressing in the evolving internet, enabling the transition from ARPANET's NCP to TCP/IP on January 1, 1983.^[9] Classful addressing thus served as a pragmatic solution to IP address scarcity and routing complexity in the nascent internet, formalized within IPv4 protocols.^[5]

Introduction and Standardization in IPv4

Classful addressing was formally introduced as part of the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) specification in RFC 791, published in September 1981, which defined the 32-bit address structure and divided the address space into classes to accommodate the expanding Internet. This approach replaced earlier, more limited addressing schemes and was further detailed in subsequent documents, including RFC 1166 in 1990, which provided a status report on assigned network numbers under the classful system, building on earlier drafts like RFC 790.^[10] The classful model enabled efficient routing by categorizing addresses based on leading bits, allowing routers to infer network boundaries without additional information. The standardization of classful addressing was overseen by the Internet Activities Board (IAB), the precursor to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which coordinated protocol development, while address allocation responsibilities fell to the Network Information Center (NIC) at SRI International initially, evolving into the role of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) by the late 1980s.^[5] IANA, under IETF guidance, managed the distribution of class-based address blocks to organizations, ensuring unique global addressing for interconnected networks. Starting in 1981, Class A blocks—offering the largest host capacities—were allocated to major entities such as government agencies, universities, and research institutions like ARPA and MIT, reflecting the anticipated needs of large-scale early adopters. This structured allocation proved essential as the Internet grew rapidly; in 1981, the network operated with a limited base akin to the 256-network capacity of prior ARPANET protocols, but by the mid-1980s, the number of networks had expanded to thousands, driven by academic and military connections, which the classful hierarchy supported for scalable routing and management.^[11] Early protocols like those of ARPANET served as precursors, providing the foundation for IPv4's addressing evolution.^[5]

Core Concepts and Definition

Principles of Classful Addressing

Classful addressing represents a foundational approach to organizing the 32-bit IPv4 address space, which totals 2^{32} unique addresses, by partitioning it into five distinct classes to facilitate structured allocation and routing. This scheme, defined in the original Internet Protocol specification, assigns Classes A, B, and C for unicast communication, Class D for multicast purposes, and reserves Class E for experimental or future use.^[1] The partitioning aimed to provide a hierarchical structure that could accommodate varying scales of networks while maintaining operational efficiency in the nascent Internet environment.^[1] At its core, classful addressing divides each IP address into a fixed-length network portion and a host portion strictly according to predefined class boundaries, eschewing any provision for variable-length prefixes. This rigid division ensured that the network identifier and host identifier lengths remained constant within each class, promoting a uniform interpretation across the network.^[12] By relying on these fixed boundaries, the system avoided the complexity of dynamic length adjustments, allowing for straightforward address decoding based solely on the class affiliation.^[12] The philosophy underlying classful addressing emphasized simplicity in router implementations during the early days of internetworking, where computational resources were limited and large, fixed-size address blocks enabled efficient aggregation to minimize routing table entries. Without the need for explicit subnet masks, routers could infer the network ID directly from the first octet of the address combined with the class determination, streamlining forwarding decisions and reducing overhead in protocol processing.^[12] This design choice reflected the hierarchical needs emerging from early protocols, providing a scalable yet uncomplicated framework for interconnecting disparate networks.^[1]

Class Identification and Prefix Rules

In classful networking, the class of an IPv4 address is determined by examining the leading bits of its first octet, which serves as the primary identifier for the address structure. This binary prefix method allows routers and hosts to interpret the division between the network portion and the host portion without additional mask information. Specifically, addresses beginning with the bit pattern 0xxxxxxx are classified as Class A, those with 10xxxxxx as Class B, 110xxxxx as Class C, 1110xxxx as Class D, and 1111xxxx as Class E.^[1] The prefix rules define the fixed allocation of bits to network and host fields for each class, establishing rigid boundaries that reflect the classful philosophy of predefined address sizes. For Class A addresses, the network portion consists of 1 octet (8 bits total, with the leading bit fixed as 0), leaving 3 octets (24 bits) for host identification. Class B addresses allocate 2 octets (16 bits total, with the leading two bits fixed as 10) to the network and 2 octets (16 bits) to the host. Class C addresses use 3 octets (24 bits total, with the leading three bits fixed as 110) for the network and 1 octet (8 bits) for the host. In contrast, Class D addresses, intended for multicast groups, do not employ a network-host split and instead use the full 32 bits to specify group addresses. Class E addresses are fully reserved for future or experimental use and follow no network-host delineation.^[1] The number of usable host addresses in a classful network is calculated using the formula $2^{32 - n} - 2, where n represents the number of network bits (8 for Class A, 16 for Class B, and 24 for Class C). The subtraction of 2 accounts for reserving the all-zero host address (representing the network itself) and the all-ones host address (used for broadcast). This yields $2^{24} - 2 = 16,777,214 hosts for Class A, $2^{16} - 2 = 65,534 for Class B, and $2^8 - 2 = 254 for Class C. Classes D and E do not support host calculations in this manner due to their specialized purposes.^[1]^[13] These rules correspond to specific decimal ranges in the first octet: 1–126 for Class A, 128–191 for Class B, 192–223 for Class C, 224–239 for Class D, and 240–255 for Class E. The value 0 in the first octet is reserved for addresses referring to the local network, while 127 is designated for loopback functions within the host.^[1]

Address Classes

Class A Networks

Class A addresses in the IPv4 protocol are designed for networks requiring a vast number of host addresses, featuring an 8-bit network portion and a 24-bit host portion. The first octet ranges from 1 to 126, providing 126 possible distinct networks, while each network supports up to $2^{24} - 2 \approx 16.7 million usable host addresses, excluding the network and broadcast addresses. These addresses are identified by a leading bit of 0 in the first octet.^[1] Allocation of Class A address space was managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and later regional registries such as the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), with blocks assigned in their entirety to large organizations. For instance, the 10.0.0.0/8 block was reserved for private use within enterprises not connected to the public Internet. Other allocations went to major institutions, including the 18.0.0.0/8 block, historically assigned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the late 1970s for research purposes and later administered by ARIN as a legacy assignment.^[14]^[15] Intended for very large-scale deployments, Class A networks were allocated to enterprises, Internet service providers (ISPs), and government entities anticipating the need for millions of hosts, such as in early academic and corporate computing environments. The MIT allocation, for example, supported extensive research networking at the institution during the Internet's formative years.^[1]^[16] This fixed large-block structure, while suitable for mega-networks, led to significant address space waste when applied to smaller organizations, as the minimum allocation provided far more addresses than needed. By the early 1990s, only about 39% of the Class A space had been allocated, with 49 out of 126 networks in use as of 1992, highlighting underutilization and contributing to broader IPv4 scarcity concerns.^[17]

Class B Networks

Class B networks, defined in the original IPv4 specification, are identified by the leading bits "10" in the first octet, which ranges from 128 to 191.^[1] This structure allocates the first 16 bits to the network portion and the remaining 16 bits to the host portion, providing a default subnet mask of 255.255.0.0.^[1] Consequently, each Class B network supports up to $2^{16} - 2 = 65{,}534 usable host addresses, excluding the all-zeros network address and the all-ones broadcast address.^[1] This design was intended for medium-sized networks anticipated to require tens of thousands of hosts, balancing the needs of growing organizations in the 1980s.^[1] The Class B address space encompasses 16,384 possible networks, calculated from the 14 bits available for network identification after the leading "10" bits.^[1] These were commonly assigned to universities, corporations, and other medium-to-large entities requiring substantial internal addressing capacity, such as campus-wide systems or enterprise infrastructures.^[1] For private use, RFC 1918 designates the range 172.16.0.0/12 (from 172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255) as a Class B block for non-Internet-routable internal networks, enabling organizations to conserve public addresses while supporting up to 1,048,576 total addresses across 16 /16 subnets.^[14] Although crafted to accommodate the Internet's expansion during the 1980s, Class B allocations contributed to early address space fragmentation by granting large blocks that often exceeded actual needs, leading to inefficient utilization. By the early 1990s, approximately 45% of the Class B space had been allocated, highlighting the rapid depletion driven by commercial and academic growth.

Class C Networks

Class C networks in IPv4 classful addressing are defined by the first three bits of the 32-bit address being 110, corresponding to first octets in the range 192 to 223.^[1] This configuration allocates 24 bits for the network portion (including the fixed leading bits) and 8 bits for the host portion, enabling each Class C network to support up to 256 total addresses, of which 254 are usable for hosts after reserving the network and broadcast addresses (calculated as $2^8 - 2 = 254).^[1] With 21 variable bits available for the network identifier beyond the fixed prefix, Class C addressing permits 2,097,152 distinct networks, far outnumbering the 128 possible Class A networks or the 16,384 Class B networks, making it the most abundant class in terms of network allocations.^[1] A prominent example is the private network block 192.168.0.0/24, which falls within the larger reserved private range of 192.168.0.0/16 comprising 256 contiguous Class C equivalents, designated by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for non-routable internal use.^[14] Intended primarily for small-scale deployments, Class C networks accommodate organizations or segments requiring fewer than 254 hosts, such as individual departments or small offices.^[1] They gained widespread adoption in local area networks (LANs) for small businesses and early consumer internet connections, where many home routers defaulted to private Class C addresses like 192.168.1.0/24 to enable simple internal connectivity without consuming public IP resources.^[14] Despite their efficiency for modest host counts, the fixed 254-host limit per network proved suboptimal for organizations with varying sizes, often leading to underutilized address space.^[1]

Class D and Class E Networks

Class D addresses in the IPv4 classful addressing scheme are identified by a first octet ranging from 224 to 239, corresponding to the high-order four bits set to 1110.^[12] These addresses are specifically reserved for IP multicast applications, where a single packet is transmitted to a group of interested hosts rather than to individual unicast destinations.^[12] Unlike the unicast-oriented Classes A, B, and C, Class D addresses do not employ a network/host split; instead, the remaining 28 bits following the fixed prefix form the multicast group identifier, enabling up to 2²⁸ (approximately 268 million) possible groups.^[18] This structure was formalized in the Internet Protocol specification to support efficient one-to-many communication.^[12] The use of Class D addresses was further detailed in host extensions for IP multicasting, published in 1989, which introduced protocols for hosts to join and leave multicast groups dynamically.^[19] A prominent example is the permanent group address 224.0.0.1, designated for all IP hosts on a directly connected subnet, allowing essential discovery and maintenance traffic.^[20] Multicast operations relying on Class D addresses are facilitated by protocols such as the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP), which enables routers to track group memberships and forward packets accordingly.^[21] These addresses are integral to applications like video streaming and network diagnostics but are handled differently by routers, which do not forward them as standard unicast traffic beyond local scopes in some cases.^[22] Class E addresses, spanning the first octet from 240 to 255 (high-order four bits 1111), were reserved from the outset of IPv4 for experimental or future use, with no allocations intended for general deployment.^[12] This reservation, established in 1981 to preserve address space amid growing Internet needs, encompasses the entire 240.0.0.0/4 block and prohibits its use in public routing tables.^[1] As a result, Class E addresses are not routable on the public Internet and remain largely unused, though they may appear in isolated research or internal networks for testing purposes.^[23] Their status as reserved for potential future addressing modes has been reaffirmed in subsequent standards, ensuring no depletion of this space for unforeseen protocol evolutions.^[24]

Practical Implementation and Limitations

Subnetting Within Classful Addresses

Subnetting within classful addresses enables the division of a single Class A, B, or C network into multiple smaller subnetworks, or subnets, to improve address utilization and organizational efficiency without changing the external classful representation of the network.^[25] This technique, formalized in RFC 950 in August 1985, borrows bits from the host portion of the IP address to form a subnet identifier (subnet ID), leaving the network prefix intact for routing outside the local environment.^[25] As a result, subnets remain logically invisible to routers beyond the immediate network, preserving the classful view where the entire divided network appears as one unified entity.^[25] The core mechanism relies on a subnet mask, a 32-bit value that specifies which bits represent the network and subnet portions versus the host portion.^[25] Within a classful network, such as a Class C address with its inherent 24-bit network prefix and 8 host bits, administrators can apply a variable subnet mask to borrow a variable number of bits (denoted as n) from the host field.^[25] For instance, using a /25 mask on a Class C /24 network (e.g., 192.168.1.0) borrows 1 bit, creating two subnets (192.168.1.0/25 and 192.168.1.128/25), each accommodating 126 hosts after reserving the all-zero and all-ones addresses for network and broadcast purposes.^[25] The number of possible subnets is calculated as $2^n, where n is the number of borrowed bits, while the number of usable hosts per subnet is $2^{(h - n)} - 2, with h representing the original host bits in the class (e.g., 16 for Class B).^[25] For a Class B network like 172.16.0.0 (which has 16 host bits), borrowing 8 bits for the subnet ID with a /24 mask yields $2^8 = 256 subnets, each supporting $2^{8} - 2 = 254 hosts; one such subnet would be 172.16.1.0/24.^[25] Routers within the organization apply the subnet mask via a bitwise AND operation on the destination IP address to identify the subnet ID, treating all subnets as extensions of the parent classful network ID for internal forwarding.^[25] External routers, lacking knowledge of the subnet mask, forward packets to the entire classful network as a single destination.^[25]

Inefficiencies and Routing Challenges

Classful addressing's rigid allocation of fixed-size address blocks resulted in significant waste of IPv4 space, as organizations were assigned entire classes regardless of their actual needs. For instance, a small organization requiring only a few thousand addresses might receive a Class A block, providing over 16 million addresses, leaving the vast majority unused. This over-allocation stemmed from the lack of intermediate-sized classes between the small Class C (suitable for up to 254 hosts) and the large Class B (up to 65,534 hosts), forcing administrators to select the next available class and discard excess addresses.^[26]^[3] Such inefficiencies accelerated the projected exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool, with forecasts in the early 1990s indicating a crisis by 1993–1995 if allocation practices continued unchanged. The classful system's inability to support flexible sizing meant that even modest network growth often required jumping to a much larger block, exacerbating scarcity as the Internet expanded rapidly. By the mid-1990s, substantial portions of allocated space remained unadvertised or unused due to these mismatches.^[3]^[27] Routing challenges arose primarily from the proliferation of small, non-aggregatable networks, particularly Class C blocks, which could not be summarized beyond their class boundaries. This led to explosive growth in global routing tables, as each new allocation added a discrete entry without hierarchical compression. By late 1993, backbone routing tables had surpassed 10,000 entries, with the majority consisting of individual Class C routes, straining router memory and processing capabilities and contributing to network slowdowns and instability.^[3]^[28] Address fragmentation further compounded these issues, as organizations receiving oversized blocks could not easily return or reallocate unused portions back to the pool. Early loose assignment policies left many prefixes idle—either for internal use or due to overestimation—trapping them in private hands and preventing redistribution. While subnetting offered a partial internal mitigation by dividing blocks within an organization, it did little to address global fragmentation or routing bloat.^[27]^[3]

Transition and Legacy

Emergence of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)

In response to the inefficiencies of classful addressing, which led to rapid exhaustion of IPv4 addresses and explosive growth in routing tables, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) introduced Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) as a successor mechanism.^[29] Published in September 1993 as RFC 1519 by authors Vince Fuller, Tony Li, Jessica Yu, and Kannan Varadhan, CIDR aimed to supplant fixed class boundaries with more flexible allocation strategies to conserve address space and improve routing scalability.^[29] CIDR's core mechanism employs variable-length subnet masking (VLSM), where network prefixes are defined by their length in bits rather than rigid class sizes, allowing allocations of arbitrary sizes between /2 and /30 for IPv4.^[29] This enables supernetting, or route aggregation, by combining contiguous address blocks into larger prefixes for more efficient advertisement in inter-domain routing protocols like BGP.^[29] For instance, multiple smaller networks can be aggregated to reduce the number of distinct routes propagated across the Internet backbone. A key concept in CIDR is its notation, which specifies a network address followed by a slash and the prefix length, such as 192.168.0.0/16, indicating the first 16 bits as the network portion.^[29] This notation facilitates hierarchical aggregation, where routers use longest-prefix matching to forward packets, significantly reducing routing table sizes—projections in RFC 1519 estimated a potential drop in annual growth from over 130% to around 6%.^[29] CIDR was deployed starting in late 1993, with the IETF's CIDR Deployment Working Group chartered in March 1994 to coordinate implementation.^[30]^[31] As part of the transition, the remaining IPv4 address space was allocated in /8 blocks to regional Internet registries and service providers, enabling them to subdivide these into smaller, demand-based prefixes for two-year needs.^[29]

Current Relevance and Deprecation

Classful addressing was deprecated in favor of classless inter-domain routing (CIDR) through RFC 1519 in September 1993, marking the shift away from fixed network classes to more flexible prefix-based allocations.^[29] This transition accelerated in 1994 as Internet registries began allocating addresses using variable-length prefixes, rendering classful methods obsolete for new assignments.^[3] No new classful IP address blocks have been allocated by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) or regional registries since the mid-1990s, with full deployment of CIDR across the global Internet achieved by 2005.^[3] CIDR-related RFCs, such as RFCs 1517–1519, were reclassified as Historic in 2006 via RFC 4632, reflecting the obsolescence of their specific guidance in light of full CIDR adoption.^[3] Although deprecated, classful addressing retains limited relevance in legacy systems and configurations. Older routers and networking devices may default to classful routing protocols like RIP version 1 if not explicitly configured for classless operation, potentially causing compatibility issues in mixed environments.^[32] Private IPv4 address ranges outlined in RFC 1918, published in 1996, continue to structure internal networks around classful blocks—a single Class A (10.0.0.0/8), 16 contiguous Class B networks (172.16.0.0/12), and 256 Class C networks (192.168.0.0/16)—and remain widely adopted for non-routable enterprise and home setups without global uniqueness requirements.^[14] Early versions of operating systems, such as Windows 95 and NT, applied classful default subnet masks (e.g., 255.0.0.0 for Class A addresses) when no explicit mask was provided, a behavior echoed in some diagnostic tools and legacy software today.^[33] Remnants of classful concepts persist in specific modern contexts, including embedded devices with outdated firmware that enforce class-based subnet assumptions for simplicity in resource-constrained environments.^[34] In education, classful addressing serves as a foundational teaching tool in networking curricula, such as Cisco's CCNA program, to illustrate IP fundamentals before advancing to classless methods. Notably, IPv6 addressing architecture, defined in RFC 4291, eliminates classful divisions entirely, employing a fully prefix-based, classless model to prevent the inefficiencies observed in IPv4's early design.^[35]

References

[1]
RFC 791 - Internet Protocol - IETF Datatracker
RFC 791 defines the Internet Protocol, designed for transmitting data blocks (datagrams) through interconnected networks, using addressing and fragmentation.Missing: classful | Show results with:classful
[2]
[PDF] IPv4 Addressing White Paper—August 2013 - Cisco
Classful IP Addressing IP addresses were initially divided into several different categories, or classes, based on how many bits of the address were used for ...
[3]
RFC 4632 - Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) - IETF Datatracker
This memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the existing 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the address space.
[4]
RFC 1817 - CIDR and Classful Routing - IETF Datatracker
RFC 1817 - CIDR and Classful Routing. This RFC is labeled as "Legacy"; it was published before a formal source was recorded. This RFC is not endorsed by the ...
[5]
A Brief History of the Internet - Internet Society
Jon Postel acted as RFC Editor as well as managing the centralized administration of required protocol number assignments, roles that he continued to play ...Missing: classful | Show results with:classful
[6]
ARPANET IMP topology using NCP - Retrocomputing Stack Exchange
Feb 26, 2024 · From what I have read, early NCP addresses were 8 bits: 2 to specify the host number, and 6 for the IMP number. (I am unsure which RFC ...Missing: issues | Show results with:issues
[7]
[PDF] A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication - cs.Princeton
1) Each network may have distinct ways of addressing the receiver, thus requiring that a uniform addressing scheme be created which can be understood by each ...
[8]
RFC 790: Assigned numbers
### Summary of RFC 790: Assigned Numbers
[9]
RFC 791: Internet Protocol
The internet protocol is designed for use in interconnected systems of packet-switched computer communication networks. Such a system has been called a catenet.Missing: origins classful
[10]
RFC 1166 - Internet numbers - IETF Datatracker
This memo is a status report on the network numbers and autonomous system numbers used in the Internet community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Missing: classful | Show results with:classful
[11]
Internet History of 1980s
Between the beginning of 1986 and the end of 1987 the number of networks grows from 2,000 to nearly 30,000. TCP/IP is available on workstations and PCs such as ...
[12]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc791#section-3.2
[13]
Understand Host and Subnet Quantities - Cisco
The first octet range of 192 to 223 is a Class C address. Class D—Used for multicast. Multicast IP addresses have their first octets in the range 224 to 239.
[14]
RFC 1918 - Address Allocation for Private Internets - IETF Datatracker
This document describes address allocation for private internets. The allocation permits full network layer connectivity among all hosts inside an enterprise.Missing: classful | Show results with:classful
[15]
IPv4 Address Space
### Allocation Details for 18.0.0.0/8
[16]
MIT Goes on IPv4 Selling Spree - Internet Society
May 31, 2017 · The LCS NET at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science got the 18.0. 0.0/8 back in 1977.Missing: allocation historical
[17]
RFC 1466 - Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
This document proposes a plan which will forward the implementation of RFC 1174 and which defines the allocation and assignment of the network number space.Missing: IPv4 | Show results with:IPv4
[18]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1112.html#section-4
[19]
RFC 1112: Host extensions for IP multicasting
Class D addresses are described in section 4 of this memo. Level 1: support for sending but not receiving multicast IP datagrams. Level 1 allows a host to ...
[20]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1112.html#appendix-I
[21]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1112.html#section-3
[22]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1112.html#section-2
[23]
IPv4 Address Space - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
Oct 10, 2025 · Originally, all the IPv4 address spaces was managed directly by the IANA. Later parts of the address space were allocated to various other ...
[24]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5735#section-3
[25]
RFC 950: Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure
This memo discusses the utility of "subnets" of Internet networks, which are logically visible sub-sections of a single Internet network.
[26]
draft-sambana-irtf-internet-protocol-sixteen-01 - IETF Datatracker
The first byte (or octet) of an IP address identifies the classes, For example, the address 205.176.253.5 is a class C address are identied. Sambana Expires ...
[27]
RFC 1917 - An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused ...
Because of the built-in notion of classful addresses, subnetting ... RFC 1917 Appeal to Return Unused IP Networks to IANA February 1996 their address ...
[28]
[PDF] On Characterizing BGP Routing Table Growth Tian Bu, Lixin Gao ...
The size of a BGP routing table, i.e., the number of prefixes contained in the routing table, has risen from 10,000 to 100,000 over the past six years [1] [2].
[29]
RFC 1519 - Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) - IETF Datatracker
This memo discusses strategies for address assignment of the existing IP address space with a view to conserve the address space and stem the explosive growth ...
[30]
RFC 1467 - Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet
RFC 1467 Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet August 1993 ; 2. Milestones that have been met ...
[31]
CIDR Deployment (cidrd) - IETF Datatracker
Date, By, Action. 1996-12-19, (System), Concluded group. 1994-03-08, (System), Started group. 1994-03-08, (System), Proposed group. 1994-02-28, (System) ...
[32]
Classful vs Classless Routing Protocols - NetworkLessons.com
Routing protocols can be classful or classless. In this lesson, I explain the differences between them and their (dis)advantages.
[33]
TCP/IP addressing and subnetting - Windows Client | Microsoft Learn
Jan 15, 2025 · Class B networks use a default subnet mask of 255.255.0.0 and have 128-191 as their first octet. The address 172.16.52.63 is a class B address.
[34]
Difference Between Classful Routing and Classless Routing
Jul 12, 2025 · Compatibility: Most older routing protocols and devices support only classful routing; hence, it remains a standard in legacy systems.
[35]
RFC 4291: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
### Summary of RFC 4291 - IPv6 Addressing Architecture