IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050
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, --------Scott.
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Scott Gifford wrote:
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.
That portion of RFC 2050, I believe, refers to renumbering within the same ISP, where it's reasonably easy to allow time for customers to renumber. When a customer is moving from another ISP to you, they're pretty much SOL when it comes to their old IPs. -- Andrew O. Smith - <aos@insync.net> | "Revenge is so very sweet." Sysadmin, Insync Internet Services | --Eric Cartman Houston, Texas, USA |
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
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.
Thanks for any experience/info/ideas/reality checks,
Hmm... About four weeks ago, before the InternetMCI->C&W sale was finalized, the policy was that MCI customers would have up to six months (as per RFC 2050 and generally accepted good practices) at such time the network space would be returned to MCI's pool. A very detailed policy paper on this was posted at: http://infopage.mci.net/Address/nonportable.html -now- http://infopage.cw.net/Address/nonportable.html However, since the logo has changed, they have now removed ALL information regarding any grace period. Maybe someone from C&W can address this? Was this a mistake/oversight or has the policy actually changed? ...and while your're at it, can you change the incorrect billing name on our account? I'v been trying to get it done for 3+ years! :( -Robert Robert Boyle Server Co-location, Garden Networks Internet Access, 50 Diller Ave Development & Consulting Newton, NJ 07860 (973)300-9211 Ext.103 8AM-8PM Mon-Fri EST http://www.garden.net Quality Internet Connectivity Nationwide
It's is C&W's policy to allow a reasonable amount of time for renumbering. The policy that was in place when MCI's "logo" was on the network remains the same. Customers can work out the details by sending email to ipadmin@cw.net. Ron Stear
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Boyle Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 9:19 PM To: Scott Gifford; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050
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
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
At 08:33 PM 10/7/98 -0400, Scott Gifford wrote: 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.
Thanks for any experience/info/ideas/reality checks,
Hmm...
About four weeks ago, before the InternetMCI->C&W sale was finalized, the policy was that MCI customers would have up to six months (as per RFC 2050 and generally accepted good practices) at such time the network space would be returned to MCI's pool. A very detailed policy paper on this was posted at:
http://infopage.mci.net/Address/nonportable.html
-now-
http://infopage.cw.net/Address/nonportable.html However, since the logo has changed, they have now removed ALL information regarding any grace period. Maybe someone from C&W can address this? Was this a mistake/oversight or has the policy actually changed? ...and while your're at it, can you change the incorrect billing name on our account? I'v been trying to get it done for 3+ years! :( -Robert Robert Boyle Server Co-location, Garden Networks Internet Access, 50 Diller Ave Development & Consulting Newton, NJ 07860 (973)300-9211 Ext.103 8AM-8PM Mon-Fri EST http://www.garden.net Quality Internet Connectivity Nationwide
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@mhsc.com>rmeyer@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
In message <199810080328.UAA03926@condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" writes:
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.
No doubt someone will claim you have some type of real estate interest involved, and depending on local law, you may have rights to sit on the IPs until lawfully evicted. :) But seriously I would suggest that you would have some expectation of rights due to RFC2050 as much as any properity rights exist for so called legacy addresses. At any rate it sounds like a unilaterial contract change by CW, which may be unenforcable. I'd just continue to announce the more specifics for 6 months just to make it as difficult as possible for CW to re-use them. It won't win CW and friends that's for sure. (hello AGIS/Net99, anyone?) --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
But seriously I would suggest that you would have some expectation of rights due to RFC2050 as much as any properity rights exist for so called legacy addresses.
After taking a cursory glance at RFC2050, i happened upon the ambiguous and unintelligable wording 'best current practice'. Even though the definition of this term was thoroughly obfuscated, i did not find LAW or JESUS SPAKE preceding any of the edicts contained within the mentioned rfc.
At any rate it sounds like a unilaterial contract change by CW, which may be unenforcable. I'd just continue to announce the more specifics for 6 months just to make it as difficult as possible for CW to re-use them.
No one will listen to your announcements because you don't matter.
It won't win CW and friends that's for sure. (hello AGIS/Net99, anyone?)
you don't need friends when people _need_ to reach your network. On an operationally related question: Do grammar and nanog go hand-in-hand or is nanog becoming (has always been?) a forum for the functionally illiterate? BR
You're missing the point. RFC2008 is the one which recognizes legacy delegations as providing ownership (and therefore property rights). -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization. On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 02:36:06AM +0000, Bradley Reynolds wrote:
But seriously I would suggest that you would have some expectation of rights due to RFC2050 as much as any properity rights exist for so called legacy addresses.
After taking a cursory glance at RFC2050, i happened upon the ambiguous and unintelligable wording 'best current practice'. Even though the definition of this term was thoroughly obfuscated, i did not find LAW or JESUS SPAKE preceding any of the edicts contained within the mentioned rfc.
At any rate it sounds like a unilaterial contract change by CW, which may be unenforcable. I'd just continue to announce the more specifics for 6 months just to make it as difficult as possible for CW to re-use them.
No one will listen to your announcements because you don't matter.
It won't win CW and friends that's for sure. (hello AGIS/Net99, anyone?)
you don't need friends when people _need_ to reach your network.
On an operationally related question:
Do grammar and nanog go hand-in-hand or is nanog becoming (has always been?) a forum for the functionally illiterate?
BR
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@Traveller.COM 2104 West Ferry Way 256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 Huntsville, AL 35801
participants (9)
-
Andrew -
Bradley Reynolds -
Jeremy Porter -
John A. Tamplin -
Karl Denninger -
Robert Boyle -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Ron Stear -
Scott Gifford