126.96.36.199/10 not in the databases
pfs at cisco.com
Tue Nov 27 22:21:48 UTC 2001
My theory is that DISO-UNRRA were originally allocated 188.8.131.52/16 through
184.108.40.206/16 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 220.127.116.11/16 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
18.104.22.168/10 568 DISO-UNRRA
22.214.171.124/13 10455 Lucent Technologies
126.96.36.199/13 568 DISO-UNRRA
188.8.131.52/13 568 DISO-UNRRA
Just a theory - but the above 4 could do with the x.0.0.0/16 being put in
ARIN's db, if the allocation can be proven...
At 12:03 27/11/2001 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
> > Says who ? - maybe you didn't check the right one ?
>Perhaps I should restate my complaint a bit. I think all three
>of these stand on their own.
>* If sub-bits of an allocation are in the ARIN database,
> I think the supernet should be in the ARIN database.
>* ARIN seems to have a good many, if not all of the .MIL
> supernets, but doesn't have this one.
>* Having .MIL say they have address space is not proof
> that they own the whole block, anymore than www.ufp.org saying
> I now own 20 class A's is proof that they are mine.
>In any event, I'd just like network lookups to work in some sane
>way, so when operators need to check something they can get accurate
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
More information about the NANOG