|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Wasted netspace (recovering)
William, If you think it would be useful, you're welcome to repost it on that mailing list. I don't generally join discussions of policy if I can help it and am not a member of that mailing list. I understand the problems of the grandfathered netblocks. Hindsight being 20/20 perhaps the initial policies could have been written in a way that permitted the changes neccessary to allow a policy change today to affect assignments from way back then. I doubt few could have foreseen how quickly IP usage grew and the problems that we face today. The only interim solution I can think of while we wait on the widespread use of IPv6 is a simple list of large, allocated chunks of netspace that are unused and who they are allocated to. Nothing insinutating or accusing them of a wrongdoing; just a statement of fact. Perhaps making such information readily available on the Net will generate enough peer pressure to convince those with unused netspace to return it. I may do as you mention and email them. Hoping for policy changes that prevent this problem from occuring is probably a pipe dream. Isn't it a good pipe dream though? Justin On Sun, 18 May 2003 [email protected] wrote: > > Discussion on changing policies allowing to recover wasted ip space > should be done on proper ARIN mailing list - [email protected] > > If you're not subscribed, I can repost your message there, but I can tell > you right now this will not be supported - nobody wants to have to > rejustify a block (even after 5 years) and even worse is that ARIN for > legal and other reasons is not touching old ip space having basicly said > they can not apply its policies there because ip space was not received > from ARIN but from another entity and ARIN is now just maintaining the > database for it. > > As for Occidental Petroleum, I'd recommend you just email them saying you > found their other ip block 155.224.0.0/16 and is concerned it maybe > hijacked and missused like several other blocks you'v seen and tell them > to update arin records, enter their tech handle and dns servers or if they > are not ever planning to use the block then to return space to ARIN. That > is about as much as you can do here. > > On Sun, 18 May 2003 [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Howdy. This afternoon I was working with a used switch I recently > > purchased when I noticed it still had the previous owner's IP in it. I > > noted that it wasn't a reserved address that I recognized so I looked it > > up. As it turned out the IP belonged to Occidental Petroleum Corp > > (oxy.com) and was part of a /16 (155.224.0.0/16). The fact that it they > > had a /16 was a bit surprising. Seeing how it was allocated back in 1992, > > I guess I really shouldn't be that surprised. I figured they must have > > enough remote offices to reasonably use a large portion of that /16. > > While loading their website I noted that www.oxy.com fell into another > > netblock (208.35.252.113/24). I was curious enough (read: bored) that I > > eventually queried Arin's WHOIS for Occidental Petroleum and was quite > > surprised at what I saw. > > > > http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=occidental%20petroleum > > > > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM (OCCIDE-1) > > Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OPC) > > Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OPC-2) > > Occidental Petroleum IP (OPI-1) > > Occidental Petroleum Corporation (AS26517) OXYHOUAS-01 26517 > > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-106789196846411 (NET-63-166-189-0-1) > > 63.166.189.0 - 63.166.189.255 > > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-106789094446405 (NET-63-166-185-0-1) > > 63.166.185.0 - 63.166.185.255 > > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-106789068846359 (NET-63-166-184-0-1) > > 63.166.184.0 - 63.166.184.255 > > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-106790118446425 (NET-63-166-225-0-1) > > 63.166.225.0 - 63.166.225.255 > > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-110111612871621 (NET-65-161-178-224-1) > > 65.161.178.224 - 65.161.178.255 > > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-349201920042097 (NET-208-35-252-0-1) > > 208.35.252.0 - 208.35.252.255 > > Occidental Petroleum Corp. OXY1-NET (NET-155-224-0-0-1) > > 155.224.0.0 - 155.224.255.255 > > Occidental Petroleum Corporation OXY-2 (NET-170-189-0-0-1) > > 170.189.0.0 - 170.189.255.255 > > Occidental Petroleum Corporation OXY-3 (NET-199-248-164-0-1) > > 199.248.164.0 - 199.248.168.255 > > Occidental Petroleum IP FON-106769945643237 (NET-63-163-205-0-1) > > 63.163.205.0 - 63.163.205.255 > > Occidental Petroleum IP FON-106780672044417 (NET-63-165-112-0-1) > > 63.165.112.0 - 63.165.112.255 > > > > They have not one /16 but two /16s, eight /24s, one /22, and one /27. > > Does this seem a little excessive to anyone else? I can think of a dozen > > state-run universities off of the top of my head that could never dream of > > justifying a /16, let alone more. > > > > I hate to pummel a dead horse but would it be worthwhile to ask these > > corporations to relinguish netblocks that they don't use or can't justify > > keeping? "Because I'm paying you" isn't a good enough reason IMHO. > > Would it be worthwhile to have organizations with direct allocations > > submit a netblock usage summary every 4-5 years to justify keeping their > > existing blocks? I know it might be hard for ARIN to justify taking back > > someone's netblocks. It just irks me to no ends to see a considerable > > amount of wasted netspace such as this. > > > > Pardon me for asking because I imagine this has been discussed many times > > before. > > > > Justin Shore > > > > > > >
|