IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050

Thu Oct 8 16:22:33 UTC 1998

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, 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?
> 
> Thanks for any experience/info/ideas/reality checks,

Since you appear to have transit from MCI, they should just let you move
those address blocks to your account and avoid renumbering entirely (or at
your leisure to take advantage of multihoming using your address block). 
We have done exactly that with several customers that used to be with MCI,
although none since CW took over.  They just go change the AS on the route
objects in the MCI RR to yours, and then you can announce them.

We have also done the same thing with a CRL customer, although that was a
much more painful experience since the router configurations are done
manually.

John Tamplin					Traveller Information Services
jat at Traveller.COM				2104 West Ferry Way
256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 		Huntsville, AL 35801