132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases
Steven M. Bellovin
smb at research.att.com
Tue Nov 27 22:48:17 UTC 2001
In message <5.1.0.14.2.20011128081413.00aa29f0 at 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.
Back in the mists of time, AT&T was allocated what we would now call
135.0.0.0/8. 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. 135.0.0.0/8 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.
>From 135.207.0.0/16,
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com
More information about the NANOG
mailing list