nanog mailing list archives
Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases
From: Philip Smith <pfs () cisco com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:27:45 +1000
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 --
Current thread:
- 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Leo Bicknell (Nov 27)
- Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Rafi Sadowsky (Nov 27)
- RE: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Matt Levine (Nov 27)
- Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Leo Bicknell (Nov 27)
- Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Philip Smith (Nov 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Borchers, Mark (Nov 27)
- Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Steven M. Bellovin (Nov 27)
- Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Philip Smith (Nov 28)
- Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases Rafi Sadowsky (Nov 27)