Karl makes a real good point, renumbering places an un-needed burdon on the customer; one they never asked for, and probably never expected. I imagine stuff like this will just cause more and more customers to move into environments with NAT, or encourage them to join the bigger networks where renumbering would be less likely. -Jamie (speaking only for myself) -----Original Message----- From: Karl Denninger [mailto:karl@mcs.net] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 10:35 PM To: Michael Shields Cc: Jon Lewis; jamie@ais.net; Jeremiah Kristal; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks? [snip] We have some customers right now which encompass multiple downline connected parties over large geographic areas, and some of their equipment is incapable of doing things like DHCP (one comes to mind that happens to be a state agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account. Any significant ISP has customers like this; there is no reason to impose these costs on you because you're smaller than someone else - no technical reason that is. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost