North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases
In message <[email protected]>, Philip Smith writes: > >My theory is that DISO-UNRRA were originally allocated 132.1.0.0/16 through >132.15.0.0/16 in the classful world - these are all in the ARIN DB under >various military guises. When CIDR came along, it seems that someone must >have decided that because 132.0.0.0/16 was now available and part of a >bigger block, it could be added to the announcement, etc...? > >There are a total of four like this: > >Network Origin AS Description >132.0.0.0/10 568 DISO-UNRRA >135.0.0.0/13 10455 Lucent Technologies >137.0.0.0/13 568 DISO-UNRRA >158.0.0.0/13 568 DISO-UNRRA Umm -- how does Lucent fit into that? Last I checked, it wasn't part of DoD. Back in the mists of time, AT&T was allocated what we would now call 135.0.0.0/8. We allocated addresses according to what seemed like a rational scheme at the time, this being pre-CIDR. But a wandering neutron struck our CEO, inducing a fission event that produced (among other particles) AT&T and Lucent. 135.0.0.0/8 was split between the two companies as a collection of /16's, on the reasonably rational grounds of "whoever is using the block gets to keep it". This minimized disruption (or rather, avoided further disruption), at a time when there was plenty of other chaos involved in splitting companies, networks, buildings, and organizations. Unfortunately, it did not happen to correspond to CIDR principles, but as I said, the allocation to AT&T antedated CIDR and in no way anticipated what the CEO and the Board of Directors was going to do. >From 135.207.0.0/16, --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com
|