North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: not in the databases

  • From: Steven M. Bellovin
  • Date: Tue Nov 27 17:50:41 2001

In message <[email protected]>, Philip Smith writes:
>My theory is that DISO-UNRRA were originally allocated through 
> 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 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
>           568     DISO-UNRRA
>         10455     Lucent Technologies
>           568     DISO-UNRRA
>           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  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. 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.


		--Steve Bellovin,
		Full text of "Firewalls" book now at