Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

[Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>]

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