[72097] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Hallgren)
Tue Jun 29 16:38:08 2004
From: "Michael Hallgren" <m.hallgren@free.fr>
To: "'Stephen J. Wilcox'" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>,
"'James'" <haesu@towardex.com>
Cc: "'Richard A Steenbergen'" <ras@e-gerbil.net>,
"'william(at)elan.net'" <william@elan.net>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:23:03 +0200
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406292104050.4317-100000@server2.tcw.telecomplete.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hi,
>=20
> Hi James,
> i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing=20
> unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there=20
> contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty=20
> of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or=20
> unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given.
>=20
> This too isnt uncommon and the usual thing that occurs at=20
> this point is the customer negotiates with the supplier for=20
> an extension in service which they pay for.
>=20
> These guys seem to not want to admit they've failed to plan=20
> this move, dont want to pay for their errors and are now=20
> either panicking or trying to prove a point to NAC.
I tend to agree. Reasonable time to migrate appears to be reasonable
"grace period." If unreasonable planning, hard (for me) to understand=20
need for unreasonable "grace period." 'reasonable' of course in need
of a defintion, but from what I see most (but perhaps not all, these
days... so I may be wrong) service providers allow sufficient "grace=20
period" to make the technical needs fly. I'm far from sure non-technical
issues should imply extended "grace period." Hrm,...
My few =F6ren (or french or canadian cents, if preferred :)
mh
>=20
> Steve
>=20
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, James wrote:
>=20
> >=20
> > quite frankly, looking at the TRO (thanks Richard for posting them=20
> > here), UCI has requested permission to use Prior UCI=20
> Addresses being=20
> > part of NAC, until September 1st, 2004. i am failing to see the=20
> > problem with this TRO, given that customer is simply=20
> requesting relief=20
> > & guarantees that their move-out operation to new facility=20
> shall go unrestricted and not interfered by NAC.
> >=20
> > granted, the actual order fell from the court doesn't specifically=20
> > state 9/1/04 as the deadline (which would be the policy=20
> issues w/ IP=20
> > address portability), I think we need to take a look at both side's=20
> > opinions and situations before blackholing
> > NAC->UCI leased IP space(s) out of the blue as some here on this=20
> > NAC->mailing list have
> > stated they would do so.
> >=20
> > all i can see here is that UCI, being a customer is simply=20
> interested=20
> > in doing what they can do to protect their business. moving entire=20
> > business operational assets between colocation facilities is not an=20
> > easy task, and can be quite risky for them. yes, i would=20
> take issues=20
> > if UCI is simply requesting permanent portability of the IP space=20
> > administrated by NAC, but so far looking at the documents,=20
> it appears=20
> > UCI seems to be requesting enough period of time to help with their=20
> > transition to the new facility, including enough time for=20
> renumbering of IP addresses in the process.
> >=20
> > Page 15, 45. of=20
> http://e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/restraining-order.pdf
> >=20
> > my 0.02
> >=20
> > -J
> >=20
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:24:44PM -0400, Richard A=20
> Steenbergen wrote:
> > >=20
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0700,=20
> william(at)elan.net wrote:
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Actually, after reading most of the papers which=20
> Richard just made=20
> > > > available at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see=20
> > > > that court made an incorrect decision (it however=20
> should have been=20
> > > > more clear enough on when TRO would end in regards to=20
> ip space).=20
> > > > If you read through
> > >=20
> > > It is very likely that Pegasus made the correct decision=20
> to protect=20
> > > their business, regardless what a bunch of engineers on=20
> NANOG think=20
> > > about the IP space question. It also seems that the TRO=20
> is about far=20
> > > more than IP space (i.e. the continuation of full=20
> transit services,=20
> > > at existing contract rates).
> > >=20
> > > > then they did other customers. Now, I do note that is probably=20
> > > > just one side of the story, so likely there would be=20
> another side=20
> > > > as this progresses through court (hopefully Richard=20
> will keep the=20
> > > > webpage current with new documents), atlthough I have=20
> to tell you=20
> > > > what I saw mentioned so far did not show NAC or its=20
> principals in the good light at all.
> > >=20
> > > I would like to post the NAC response to this so that we can hear=20
> > > all sides of the story, but unfortunately the case was moved from=20
> > > the US District Court back to the NJ Superior Court, where I no=20
> > > longer have easy access to the documents. I would be=20
> happy to take=20
> > > offline submissions of the legal filings from anyone willing to=20
> > > waste more on this than the $0.07/page that PACER charges. :)
> > >=20
> > > --=20
> > > Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> =20
> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> > > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF=20
> 4C41 5ECA F8B1=20
> > > 2CBC)
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20
