How the Chicom got my IP address???

How the Chicom got my IP address???
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 General Computer Security    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
How the Chicom got my IP address??? Lito Lipad 06-05-2008
Posted by on June 23, 2008, 7:45 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.misc, in article
>
>>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
>>
>>> Oh, Fsck! What you are asking for is enormous. What I'm using
>>
>>Egad... all I can think to say is `UNCLE'.
>
>;-) The problem is that IP address assignments were never lain out in
>a convenient way for filtering. If you look at the top of the IPv4 pile
>(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space), the range from
>58.0.0.0 to 126.255.255.255 has a faint hint of some kind of order on
>a regional basis, and if you look much harder you can even see traces of
>a hint of some order in the 193.0.0.0 - 222.255.255.255 area, but that's
>about it. RFC2050 "Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines" really
>doesn't touch on the matter. Initially, address ranges were handed out
>like it was going out of style, with little thought or planning - hence
>the use of entire /8s for trivial use (your loopback interface accepts
>127.0.0.0 through 127.255.255.255 as all meaning "me"). Now, it's
>finally dawning on people that we're running out of IPv4 addresses
>(as of last week, 71.79% of available addresses are allocated or
>assigned), and new chunks are being handed out in much smaller sizes.
>But it's still being handed out - between May 16th and June 15th,
>China picked up 12 blocks, and overall the number of addresses used
>went from 71.44% to 71.79% (up from 69.25% on 1/1/2008, and 60.6% only
>three years ago).
>

Does HP still own both the 15/8 address block and the 16/8 block it inherited
when it took over Digital ? (Actually by taking over Compaq who had taken over
Digital).

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

Posted by Frank Slootweg on June 23, 2008, 8:08 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
[...]

> Does HP still own both the 15/8 address block and the 16/8 block it
> inherited when it took over Digital ? (Actually by taking over Compaq
> who had taken over Digital).

Yup, 'we' [1] do.

--
[1] Frank "Ex-'we'." Slootweg

Posted by on June 23, 2008, 8:33 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Does HP still own both the 15/8 address block and the 16/8 block it
>> inherited when it took over Digital ? (Actually by taking over Compaq
>> who had taken over Digital).
>
> Yup, 'we' [1] do.
>
Given the lack of available address-space is there any reason for HP to hang
onto such a large address-space ?

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

>--
>[1] Frank "Ex-'we'." Slootweg

Posted by Moe Trin on June 23, 2008, 3:57 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.misc, in article

>>david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:

>>> Does HP still own both the 15/8 address block and the 16/8 block it
>>> inherited when it took over Digital ? (Actually by taking over Compaq
>>> who had taken over Digital).

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Prefix Designation Date Whois Status [1] Note

015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company 1994-07 LEGACY
016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation 1994-11 LEGACY

If you have a 'whois' tool in your O/S, ARIN says 'yes'.

>Given the lack of available address-space is there any reason for HP
>to hang onto such a large address-space ?

1917 An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused IP Networks
(Prefixes) to the IANA. P. Nesser II. February 1996. (Format:
TXT=23623 bytes) (Also BCP0004) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

RFC1917 is available via any search engine. Problem is that you'd have
to convince HP to review their use. Personally, I don't believe it's
going to happen - and that's not just HP, IBM, Xerox, Apple, MIT, Ford,
CSC, Halliburton, Eli Lily, Interop Show, Bell Northern, Prudential
Security, DuPont, Merck... you get the idea. Over the years, a number
of /8s have been returned to IANA. Looking at the list beginning on
page 7 of RFC0990 (Assigned Numbers - November 1986) and comparing it
to the web page above might give some nostalgia.

The solution seems to be to go to IPv6. As of mid-month, there was only
a tiny fraction (0.00168%) of IPv6 land allocated/assigned, and the
_smallest_ block released is a /64 (18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses)
though /48s and /32s are more common, and IANA is even prepared for the
day when those addresses run out:

1606 A Historical Perspective On The Usage Of IP Version 9. J. Onions.
April 1 1994. (Format: TXT=8398 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

RFC1606 is likewise available via any search engine. Just looking at
the web page cited at the top of this post, I notice the "Former Class
E" address range (240.0.0.0/4) is no longer marked Experimental, but
is "Reserved for Future Use". Given the fact that virtually every
network stack knows these addresses are special, I rather doubt that
anything will come of this change.

Old guy

Posted by Greg Hennessy on June 26, 2008, 3:56 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:33:03 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:

>>david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>> Does HP still own both the 15/8 address block and the 16/8 block it
>>> inherited when it took over Digital ? (Actually by taking over Compaq
>>> who had taken over Digital).
>>
>> Yup, 'we' [1] do.
>>
>Given the lack of available address-space is there any reason for HP to hang
>onto such a large address-space ?
>

Closer to home there is no reason for HMG to hang on to 51/8, which I
believe is currently unused with the DSS and is not advertised to the rest
of the world via BGP.

Greg
--
?Ħaah, los gringos otra vez!?

Similar ThreadsPosted
Use How to use the SAME Key for another eMail address ? September 22, 2005, 7:31 am
ARP requests for IP address 0.0.0.0 January 19, 2007, 3:27 pm
Packaging for MAC address ? April 9, 2007, 10:00 am
IP address on my volume control November 13, 2004, 9:56 pm
How reliable is locking MAC address for Wi-Fi router? December 2, 2004, 1:00 pm
google groups shows everyone your ip address? January 6, 2006, 6:53 pm
SMAC 2.0 is released! MAC Address Spoofer May 18, 2006, 9:42 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy