[44475] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Philip Smith)
Wed Nov 28 15:08:12 2001
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011128172412.00aa3f30@localhost>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:27:45 +1000
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
From: Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20011127224817.8BB277B55@berkshire.research.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 17:48 27/11/2001 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <5.1.0.14.2.20011128081413.00aa29f0@localhost>, 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.
Where did I say that Lucent was part of DoD? ;-) I said there were a total
of four announcements where the first /16 was announced as part of a larger
CIDR block, but not listed as being allocated to anyone...
It seems to me that in these 4 cases the organisations concerned simply
decided that CIDRisation meant that the first /16 was theirs...
philip
--
