[162520] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Wed Apr 24 06:12:41 2013
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:12:29 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1304241053120.26743@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
