Wasted netspace (recovering)

listuser at numbnuts.net listuser at numbnuts.net
Mon May 19 00:33:35 UTC 2003


If you think it would be useful, you're welcome to repost it on that 
mailing list.  I don't generally join discussions of policy if I can help 
it and am not a member of that mailing list.

I understand the problems of the grandfathered netblocks.  Hindsight being
20/20 perhaps the initial policies could have been written in a way that
permitted the changes neccessary to allow a policy change today to affect
assignments from way back then.  I doubt few could have foreseen how
quickly IP usage grew and the problems that we face today.

The only interim solution I can think of while we wait on the widespread
use of IPv6 is a simple list of large, allocated chunks of netspace that
are unused and who they are allocated to.  Nothing insinutating or
accusing them of a wrongdoing; just a statement of fact.  Perhaps making
such information readily available on the Net will generate enough peer
pressure to convince those with unused netspace to return it.

I may do as you mention and email them.  Hoping for policy changes that 
prevent this problem from occuring is probably a pipe dream.  Isn't it a 
good pipe dream though?


On Sun, 18 May 2003 william at elan.net wrote:

> Discussion on changing policies allowing to recover wasted ip space
> should be done on proper ARIN mailing list - ppml at 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 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 at 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 (  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 (  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 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)
> > -
> > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-106789094446405 (NET-63-166-185-0-1)
> > -
> > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-106789068846359 (NET-63-166-184-0-1)
> > -
> > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-106790118446425 (NET-63-166-225-0-1)
> > -
> > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-110111612871621 (NET-65-161-178-224-1) 
> > -
> > OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM FON-349201920042097 (NET-208-35-252-0-1)
> > -
> > Occidental Petroleum Corp. OXY1-NET (NET-155-224-0-0-1)
> > -
> > Occidental Petroleum Corporation OXY-2 (NET-170-189-0-0-1)
> > -
> > Occidental Petroleum Corporation OXY-3 (NET-199-248-164-0-1)
> > -
> > Occidental Petroleum IP FON-106769945643237 (NET-63-163-205-0-1) 
> > -
> > Occidental Petroleum IP FON-106780672044417 (NET-63-165-112-0-1) 
> > -
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 

More information about the NANOG mailing list