"Bill Logan" <who.DeleteThis@what.com> wrote in message news:40e4fe29@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Gregory Toomey" <nospam.DeleteThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1198780.n2QasAyOVE@GMT-hosting-and-pickle-farming...
> > Tina - AffordableHOST, Inc. wrote:
> >
<font color=brown> > > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=290814</font" target="_blank">http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=290814</font</a>>
> > >
> > > It will be interesting to see how that one turns out.
> > >
> > > --Tina
> >
> > Its a lot more complex than I first thought. Copies of court documents
here:
<font color=green> > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/</font" target="_blank">http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/</font</a>>
> >
> I don't see what all the fuss is about. Many times I and others have had
IP#'s
> taken from us and replaced with different ones by upstream providers on
some
> pretex or another. Not much different going the other way. Besides, whats
in a
> number? As long as you have one, changing them is no big deal.
While I lean towards the side of UCI got themselves into this mess by not
acting sooner, its not as simple as you make it out to be Bill. It is a
VERY big deal to renumber 1000s of machines and coordinate efforts with
everyone. That said, UCI should have had a better plan of action in place
and started working on a contingency as soon as NAC started giving them
grief.
--Tina<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Customer taking IPs with them...