On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:55:51AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I also find it a bit strange that the runout in APNIC and RIPE was very different. APNIC address allocation rate accelerated at the end, whereas RIPE exhaustion date kept creeping forward in time instead of closer in time, giving me the impression that there wasn't any panic there.
RIPE had shrinking allocation windows (12/9/6/3 months) and increasingly strict scrutining of requests. Even in 3 months window period, people showing need for >55k of IPs for that 3 months only got /17+/18 (48k) instead of /16 one would expect - so in fact the windows were even shorter in practise. Geoff pointed out the large alloc players having a huge impact in the end game scenario - this was effectively neutralized by this "soft landing" policy, I'd say. I'm not aware that APNIC also had such a "soft landing" policy in effect, but I didn't monitor closely. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0