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: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0