[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6

[Taylor, Stacy]

There is no one on this list who does not understand the pain of
renumbering.  However, it seems to me that the scope of this policy does not
encompass the renumbering of large end-sites.  In my RFC2050 /24
reclamation/Smackdown many endusers complained that it would take them 6
months to move off my numbers, but when threatened with routing cessation
they were off in 3 weeks.  People prepared to utilize this policy should
have the resources already in place to renumber when they make the request.
  
An organization turning in three disparate /24s for a /22 should not require
that much time. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig A. Huegen [mailto:chuegen at cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:25 AM
To: Taylor, Stacy
Cc: 'Sweeting, John'; ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6


On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Taylor, Stacy wrote:

> I think that 12 months to renumber is overly generous.  Organizations
> willing to request aggregatable space should be ready to renumber before
> they request it.

Renumbering a larger network takes some significant time.  Software
packages tie license keys to IP addresses, software has IP addresses hard
coded, etc.  Each of these requires project management, finding downtime
windows, user announcements / user upgrades, etc.  In some environments,
12 months is actually a very tight squeeze when you're renumbering, even
in a fully DHCP-enabled environment for end users.

Don't underestimate the work required in renumbering for medium and large
end-sites.  It's not fun, and I have battle scars to prove it.

/cah

---
Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect      C i s c o  S y s t e m s
IT Transport, Network Technology & Design           ||        ||
Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
email: chuegen at cisco.com       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..