Justin Newton wrote:
> - Depend only on voluntary participation by Internet providers.
Of late there seems to be a much higher [quotient] of
people running providers who are either slothful, not technically
competent enough to do their job, or both.
The criterion was probably poorly expressed: "Internet providers"
was intended primarily to indicated those operating large backbone
(default-less) networks.
[small access providers] are the people we have to
reclaim some space from.
I question this "have to" claim. Who has the need? Apparently
backbone providers with over-full router tables. Could they
decrease the size of their router tables without harming (and
thus possibly losing) their customers? I believe they could.
It may be politically bad, but if we are going
to do some space reclamation, lets do it whole bore.
Compliance is usually much easier to acheive when it is in
the financial best interests of those who are asked comply.
Can anyone make the case that it will be in the financial best
interests of backbone providers to tell their customers the
service they have purchased in the past (global routing for
swamp addresses) is no longer available?