(UPDATE) Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)

Wed Jun 30 07:59:44 UTC 2004

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:17:36PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

Hi,

> There are many instances in the business world where a court prohibits you
> from disconnecting services to a customer so that their business can
> continue to operate, such as during chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. You
> should really be *glad* that they ARE paying you, and especially at the
> rates mentioned in their affidavit, for that much longer. Or perhaps you
> are seeing something in this that I am not?

This is more than the court prohibiting NAC from terminating this
customer (on their request!)..

The TRO says:

 (f) NAC shall permit UCI to continue utilization through any carrier or
 carriers of UCI's choice of any IP addresses that were utilized by,
 through or on behalf of UCI under the April 2003 Agreement during the
 therm thereof (the "Prior UCI Addresses) and shall not interfere in any
 way with the use of the Prior UCI Addresses.

I don't know about you, but I read this as a court converting non-portable
address space to portable address space, without looking at the
consequenses for ARIN, NAC and network operators around the world who
need to utilize more RAM in their routers to store additional routes
simply because they are to ignorant to follow the technical guidelines
and policies of ARIN. And I find this situation highly undesirable,
regardless of any of the other facts mentioned in the legal documents
(which I have read, thanks for those).

And then I'm not even taking into account the fact that the UCI/Pegasus
is a well-known spammer (http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html).

-- 
Sabri, "I route, therefore you are"

Bescherm de digitale burgerrechten: http://www.bof.nl/donateur.html