IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050

Thu Oct 8 03:28:05 UTC 1998

At 08:33 PM 10/7/98 -0400, Scott Gifford wrote:
>We have a customer who is in the process of moving from
>MCI^H^H^HCable and Wireless to us.  They have been using MCI/CW for a while,
>and need time to renumber their equipment, have their customers change
>places they have hardcoded IP addresses, etc.  A quick read through RFC 2050
>(IP Allocation Guidelines) talks about this situation in section 2.1:
>
>    The ISP
>    should allow sufficient time for the renumbering process to be
>    completed before the IP addresses are reused.
>
>However, the rep they spoke with at MCI/CW seems to feel that the moment the
>connection is cancelled, the IP addresses may be reassigned to another
>customer, and they should not expect a grace period for renumbering.
>
>Anybody had any experience with this before?  Is it reasonable of me to
>expect MCI/CW to be nice about the whole thing, and give their customer 6
>months to renumber?  Or is this what everybody does, taking the "should"s in
>the RFC very literally?
>
>Anybody had any luck with the appeals process on things like this?

Our most recent renumber involved paying for an extra three months of
NetCom connectivity, until all our numbers and equioment were cleanly
renumbered.

___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer at mhsc.com>rmeyer at mhsc.com
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________ 
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
                -- Marvin Minsky