[136258] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Tue Feb 1 23:14:59 2011
In-Reply-To: <53646.1296618410@localhost>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:05:25 -0800
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
>> We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within
>> reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times
>> the normal request rate... that would be a "rush".
>
> Any trending on the rate of requests for IPv6 prefixes?
More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an
initial allocation and requiring more. People asking for the first
one just indicates initial adoption rates.
Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under the impression
that IPv6 allocations are designed to avoid that being necessary for
an extended period of time. If that is not true, then that's a flag.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
