Re: 132.0.0.0/10 not in the databases

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>]

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.

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.