.uk SLD history (was Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8)

This posting is not too relevant to the NANOG thread, but there are some places where IMHO the record needs to be set straight: Alexander Harrowell wrote: > 025/8 Jan 95 UK Ministry of Defense (Updated - Jan 06) > NetRange: 25.0.0.0 - 25.255.255.255

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> > And I know a company that has been using 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, > 4/8, 5/8, 6/8, > > 7/8 and 8/8 for many years, also behind NAT or on > non-Internet connected > > networks. But that is not what I am talking about here. > ... > > > And what happens if the legitimate owners of those already allocat

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

, April 16, 2007 7:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8 On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:25:58PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... > And I know a company that has been using 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 6/8, > 7/8 and 8/8 for many years, also behind NAT or

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:34:01AM +, Stephen Stuart wrote: ... > Or better yet, 11/8 (to make 10/7)? ... To step on yet another already-allocated block of IP addresses? Let's not try to hard to shoot ourselves in our collective feet. -- Joe Yao Analex Contractor

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:25:58PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... > And I know a company that has been using 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 6/8, > 7/8 and 8/8 for many years, also behind NAT or on non-Internet connected > networks. But that is not what I am talking about here. ... And what happen

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:58:39PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We > > were told that this netblock should not see the light of day, > > 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in > their bl

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> > Why don't they publish a more detailled explanation field > in each IANA > > allocation record so that they can explain the precise > status of each > > block? > > IANA's role in this should be 'Ugh. Here Big Block. Go Talk to RIR.' I was referring to the cases where they don't say that.

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a result, most people consider William Leibzon and the Bogon project to be, collectively, the authoritative source for information on whose IP address that is. That's because William and the Bogon project, act authoritative, and take some pains

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

data in the file. Ray > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Conrad > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:03 PM > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8 > > > Mich

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

David Conrad wrote: [..] >> Why doesn't IANA operate a whois server? > > We do. The proper question to ask is why isn't our whois server > populated with address information instead of just domain name > information. I don't know the reason historically. However, today, > when the topic was rec

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Michael, On Apr 15, 2007, at 2:58 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The world moved on around them but you still see things like IANA's non-parseable text file The text file is parseable -- we have empirical evidence. Every time we change the format slightly, people yell

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

At 11:51 AM +0100 4/16/07, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >In the 21st century, you look at what is available on the shelf and >widely in use on the net and adopt that. Most often this turns out to be >a RESTful API that doesn't even need XML, although something like >XML-RPC still fits the bill. I

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why doesn't IANA and the RIRs collectively get off their butts and actually make an "authoritative IP address allocation directory" one of their goals? And why don't they do all this with some 21st century technology? A new system based on IRIS

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> With whois, I'd need to do 256 lookups, and I'd probably have to > implement the whois protocol myself (ok, trivial, but still) because > I can't just use one of the 3 million HTTP utils/libraries. Really? Do you know for a fact that the IANA whois server will not support lookups for 0.0.0

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Apr 16, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Steve Wright wrote: [...] Just to note, I believe that Leo Vegoda touched on IANA developing a whois service for IP Addressing at the last UKNOF meeting in Manchester; however I may have been mistaken/ misunderstood. Yes, we're working hard on making our regis

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On 16-apr-2007, at 14:30, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Whois, LDAP and other stuff like that only makes things worse because this requires you to walk through the data rather than have it available in a nice, easy to handle text file. Yes, let's not get carried away.

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

But for those who NEED to parse it with automated systems and who NEED to know when things have changed, an IANA whois server is a better solution. Whois has things like Regdate, Updated, and a Comment field which just don't fit in a simple text file. Just to note, I believe that Leo Vegoda to

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> Come on, let's not get carried away. > > The problem with the IANA file is that "reserved" is ambiguous and > there are other things in there that get in the way of easy parsing. > This is easy enough to fix. Geoff Huston wrote a draft > suggesting how > to do it. > > Whois, LDAP and ot

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On 16-apr-2007, at 12:51, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the 21st century, you look at what is available on the shelf and widely in use on the net and adopt that. Most often this turns out to be a RESTful API that doesn't even need XML, although something like XML-RPC s

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> > Why doesn't IANA and the RIRs collectively get off their butts and > > actually make an "authoritative IP address allocation > directory" one of > > their goals? > > And why don't they do all this with some 21st century technology? > > A new system based on IRIS protocol (XML based using BEE

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> > Why doesn't IANA operate a whois server? > Why should they? What will it produce? It will produce an authoritative source of information that automated systems can query and where those systems can reliably parse the output. In cases where a human needs to check unusual cases, there will be a

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

At 06:13 PM 4/15/2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We >> were told that this netblock should not see the light of day, > > 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in > their black

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why doesn't IANA operate a whois server? In fact they do operate whois server at whois.iana.org. However that has domain data for .arpa and .int and not IPv4 whois data which IANA has historically provided using flat file pointer while having RIR

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As a result, most people consider William Leibzon and the Bogon project > to be, collectively, the authoritative source for information on whose > IP address that is. ^ If that's the case, all hope has bee

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> > We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We > > were told that this netblock should not see the light of day, > > 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in > their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrastructure. The > result

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in > their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrastructure. Er, no, it was the ARPANET's block. (See the Assigned Numbers RFCs up to 990.) Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EM

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> > 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used > exclusively in > > their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrastructure. The > > result is that 10/8 was opened up for others to use as > well. Could we do > > similar with 7/8? > > What problem would that solve instead

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Apr 15, 2007, at 2:58 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And why don't they do all this with some 21st century technology? Do they have the requisite staff and funding? --- Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // 408.527.6376

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We >> were told that this netblock should not see the light of day, > > 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in > their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrast

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

>Is it just me or does all of this have the odor of >amateur hour around it? Inconsistencies between >the various databases, IANA can't make >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space >such that it's unambiguously parsable, ARIN backdates >some of the address space it gives out, RIPE

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We > were told that this netblock should not see the light of day, 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrastructure. The result is that 10/8

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

> > And who, exactly, gets to tell IANA/ICANN how to do its job?? > > As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone on the planet... :-) but you never LISTEN! :-)

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On 15-apr-2007, at 0:49, Florian Weimer wrote: Ok, I wasn't clear: the problem here is that both ARIN and RIPE claim net 25.0.0.0/8 as "their own". This is pretty standard for European /8. 53/8 is yet another example Interesting, the 53 net is also in both whois databases. However, the

RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Huizinga, Rene wrote: BTW, on the same line what's going on with 180.190.0.0/16 actually ? It's within the 176.0.0.0/5 registered as Bogon. Is it a typo (thai-po ? :P ) from an Asian guy (AS24003 originated) or did I miss something lately...? :P I already dealt with 180.

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, David Conrad wrote: Hi, On Apr 14, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Rob Thomas wrote: We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We were told that this netblock should not see the light of day, Right. Packets sourced out of 7.0.0.0/8 should never be seen on th

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

* Rene Huizinga: > Well, at least is is still somehow with the same party... Not quite. The organization formerly known as "debis" is now called "T-Systems". > Arin states 'Mercedes Benz AG', RIPE 'Daimler Chrysler'... One would > think this would/should actually be just the other way around,

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

* Iljitsch van Beijnum: > Ok, I wasn't clear: the problem here is that both ARIN and RIPE claim > net 25.0.0.0/8 as "their own". This is pretty standard for European /8. 53/8 is yet another example (Germany has moved to five-digit zip codes since that entry was last updated). At a previous job

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: And who, exactly, gets to tell IANA/ICANN how to do its job?? As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone on the planet... :-) More seriously, registrants typically control their registration data. 7.0.0.0/8 is an extreme version of t

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Hi, David. Not really. The debate is about how that status should be reflected in the IPv4 registry maintained by IANA. The ARIN data is, as far as I am aware, accurate. Ah, sorry, pardon my misrepresentation. :) When we tried to update the IANA registry to reflect what was in the ARI

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On 14-apr-2007, at 22:16, David Conrad wrote: We're waiting for all of those parties to issue a consistent statement before we make any changes. When we tried to update the IANA registry to reflect what was in the ARIN database, we were told not to. We tried to explain the registration

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Hi, On Apr 14, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Rob Thomas wrote: We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We were told that this netblock should not see the light of day, Right. Packets sourced out of 7.0.0.0/8 should never be seen on the Internet. though there is some debat

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Hi, team. We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We were told that this netblock should not see the light of day, though there is some debate about its allocation status. We're waiting for all of those parties to issue a consistent statement before we make any

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: [..] > Another interesting case: > > 025/8 Jan 95 UK Ministry of Defense (Updated - Jan 06) [..] > I tried emailing RIPE and ARIN. [EMAIL PROTECTED] returned my message > unread and I have no idea what other email adddress to use, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ta

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On 14-apr-2007, at 12:16, Alexander Harrowell wrote: [net 25/8] Ah. I think you'll find this is a result of there being some legacy stuff from before the UK NIC, Nominet, was set up in 1996. Before then, the de facto authority was the academics, JANET, working out of the University of Lond

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On 4/14/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Another interesting case: 025/8 Jan 95 UK Ministry of Defense (Updated - Jan 06) # whois -h whois.arin.net 25.0.0.0 | more OrgName:DINSA, Ministry of Defence OrgID: DMD-16 Address:DINSA, HQ DCSA Address:

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On 14-apr-2007, at 11:56, william(at)elan.net wrote: CYMRU has 7/8 listed as a bogon: http://www.cymru.com/Documents/bogon-dd.html Their list is more or less authoritative, so I would believe that you should never see traffic from that netblock. This is also consistent with Sprint

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sat, Apr 14, 2007, william(at)elan.net wrote: > If that is the case and they started using it in the days of J Postel > with his permission, then its not a bogon. Conflicting information at > ARIN and especially that their info was updated in 2006 leads me to > believe that's the case. Add to

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Jon R. Kibler wrote: CYMRU has 7/8 listed as a bogon: http://www.cymru.com/Documents/bogon-dd.html Their list is more or less authoritative, so I would believe that you should never see traffic from that netblock. This is also consistent with Sprint blackholeing

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

CYMRU has 7/8 listed as a bogon: http://www.cymru.com/Documents/bogon-dd.html Their list is more or less authoritative, so I would believe that you should never see traffic from that netblock. This is also consistent with Sprint blackholeing it as a bogon in your original post. That s

Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Anybody know if 7.0.0.0/8 is or is not allocated to DoD? The data at IANA and ARIN is kind-of confusing... --- 7.1.1.0/24 ## AS1239 : SPRINTLINK : Sprint 7.0.0.0 - 7.255.255.255 ## Bogon (unallocated) ip range --