As a thought experiment, if Furio were to remove LIRs from Eastern Europe, in particular, Romania, from his list below, what would RIPE NCC's figures fall to?
Most of those /14s are swipped and then re-swipped to a succession of shell companies that appear to remain valid for the minimum possible duration - and are typically (as creating a shell company in romania requires valid ID) set up by the simple expedient of walking into a bar and paying a guy there a few euro to get him to use his ID to set up the shell company.
So even "a much larger number of customers in the RIPE region" is a figure that you would have to allow for substantial inflation in, when you consider these numbers.
--srs
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, Gert Doering wrote:
> ARIN clearly has a serious problem too, but when the number of
> problem is normalized with the allocation size we obtain (number
> of problems per /8):
>
> AFRINIC ..... 0.31
> APNIC ....... 0.35
> ARIN ........ 3.44
> LACNIC ...... 0.50
> RIPENCC ..... 6.27
I'm not sure what good is "normalizing by amount of /8s", as that is
easily skewed by a few early and large allocations, of which ARIN has
quite a lot.
Normalizing by *number of LIRs* seems to be a much more interesting metric
to see "what percentage of the LIRs under a given RIR umbrella are
problematic".
--
--srs (iPad)