Reply to MCI question

[The Innkeeper]

> I'll just take one second to clarify MCI's position.
> If your request is for address space equal to a /18 or more than we refer
> you to the InterNic since our addresses are non-portable and also in
> following Kim's recommendations and RFC 2050. If it is less and you have
> justified your request and you are also following "slow start" IAW RFC
> 2050 then we have no problems allocating address space to any of our
> customers. Thank you.

TKS for the clarification John....But all I needed was a /24 for startup
and was still directed to InterNIC...Maybe a mistake....But am glad you
clirified that for future reference...TKS again

Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services
                   http://www.sols.net    the_innkeeper at sols.net
                     VOICE: (304)235-3767   FAX: (304)235-3772
Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors
                                        http://www.aop.org


-----------
> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote:
> 
> > > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint
we
> > were
> > > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP
blocks. 
> > > 
> > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major
> > NSP's.
> > > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't
really
> > > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI
and
> > > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but
that
> > is
> > > a completely different issue.
> > 
> > 
> > This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No
sales
> > geek....