nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050
From: Andrew <aos () insync net>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:59:35 -0500 (CDT)
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 |
Current thread:
- IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Scott Gifford (Oct 07)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Robert Boyle (Oct 07)
- RE: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Ron Stear (Oct 08)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Roeland M.J. Meyer (Oct 07)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Jeremy Porter (Oct 07)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Bradley Reynolds (Oct 08)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Tony Li (Oct 08)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Karl Denninger (Oct 08)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Jeremy Porter (Oct 07)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Robert Boyle (Oct 07)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 Andrew (Oct 08)
- Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050 John A. Tamplin (Oct 08)