Re: Wasted netspace (recovering)

[william () elan net]

Discussion on changing policies allowing to recover wasted ip space
should be done on proper ARIN mailing list - ppml () arin net

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 listuser () numbnuts net 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