metasystema.org
ObsoletedINFORMATIONALLegacy stream

RFC 1627: Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices Shouldn't be Codified)

This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 1918.

Current document in this lineage: RFC 1918 — Address Allocation for Private Internets

In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC

This document restates the arguments for maintaining a unique address space. Concerns for Internet architecture and operations, as well as IETF procedure, are explored. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

Document record

Document ID
RFC1627
Published
July 1994
Authors
E. Lear; E. Fair; D. Crocker; T. Kessler
Status
INFORMATIONAL
Stream
Legacy
Area
—
Pages
8
Also known as
—
Obsoleted by:
RFC 1918

Topics

Standards lineage

This document is one revision in a chain of 3 RFCs, each formally replacing the one before it.

  1. RFC 1597 (1994)
  2. RFC 1627 (1994)
  3. RFC 1918 (1996) ✓

Read the full history of Address Allocation for Private Internets →

Referenced by

One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.

Related documents

Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.

Also filed under

About this page

The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.

Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.

Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?

canonical URL: /rfc/1627-network-10-considered-harmful-some-practices-shouldn-t-be-codified