In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In which case BT have handed a block addresses over to Plusnet, and the RIPE database, (the UK master database), has been updated. That's what the checker I gave you reads in real time.

Speedtest.net and tbb must be holding copy databases and not updated yet.

I believe the TBB database was updated earlier today, and there's a request in to sort the speedtest.net one out (I think the geo-location provider they use run the updates monthly).

Rgds,

BTW we also deal with IPv6 blocks too now

TBB now says plusnet but speedtest still BT

It doesn't really matter how many switch off their routers at night. The limit case is peak time.

So 100% of the customers would need an IP address at peak periods. In fact, it would be sensible to over-provide, to take account of race conditions when assigning and returning to the pool.

TBB now says plusnet but speedtest still BT

Thanks, I don't expect speedtest.net to be sorted for at least a week or two due to the frequency of their updates.

Rgds,

In reply to a post by richi:

It doesn't really matter how many switch off their routers at night. The limit case is peak time.

So 100% of the customers would need an IP address at peak periods. In fact, it would be sensible to over-provide, to take account of race conditions when assigning and returning to the pool.

Agreed

Just to be pedantic:
Although it will be (very?) close to 100%, I can't agree that 100% of customers would need an IP address at peak time.
For larger providers there will almost certainly be some customers not online at any given time, possible reasons include faults or being away from home on holiday or business, I accept that the numbers wouldn't exactly justify a reduction in the number of IP addresses available though.

LOL yeah.

Mind you, that offline number would be dwarfed by any padding needed to cope with pool-management race conditions.

I suppose it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that Plusnet have almost run out of IPv4 addresses, with their recent huge growth while there weren't many more to be had. SOme also taking static IP addresses which reduces the pool.

Given the way they did absolutely everything possible to avoid giving us a /29 as partner's, I can well believe they've got a serious lack of IPv4 addressing space spare...might explain why they were utterly pedantic and almost begging us to go away.

Quite. OK, I was wrong about the static IP bit, but what you say suggests my post was essentially correct.