Pressure from Cogent? I'm not sure Cogent had to apply any pressure to Peer1. Cogent could simply have null routed small aggregates of the block, rendering it useless. i.e. /24s of the /22 all static routed to one of their loopback addresses, then redistributed into BGP and sent on to their peers. By contacting Peer1, they actually did you something of a favor, as they allowed you to gracefully stop advertising the block, rather than null routing you.
Of course, the amount of time you have to renumber, should it prove necessary, should be specified in the Terms and Conditions of your transit contract. If you feel wronged, you can file suit against Cogent. ARIN can publish guidelines about what others should do, and they can specify policies that govern their interaction with specific organizations, but they don't have the kind of authority to do what you are looking for. I suppose the moral of the story is, if you get into a billing dispute with an upstream, be cognizant of what's on the line, including issues like IP space, circuit term liability, etc. - Daniel Golding > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Ralph Doncaster > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 1:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: IP renumbering timeframe > > > > We entered into a contract with Cogent for service, and were assigned a > /22 for our use. This reassignment was listed in Cogent's rwhois server > (they don't SWIP). They also gave written permission to another transit > provider (Peer1) to accept our BGP announcements for the /22. We have > been announcing them to our Peer1 and over a dozen peers for a few months > now. After paying Cogent $11K, a billing dispute developed. On Friday > May 3 we terminated our service with Cogent, and on May 5 Cogent contacted > our main internet connection provder to stop routing these IPs. Cogent did > not contact us first. There is still an RADB entry for this block with > our AS21936 as the origin. Under pressure from Cogent Peer1 complied, > though I think I have them convinced that a few hours notice on a Sunday > evg is not a reasonable amount of time to renumber from a /22. > > What is the generally accpted timeframe for renumbering? My reading of > ARIN policy would seem to imply at least 30 days. > > Ralph Doncaster > principal, IStop.com > div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc. >