Michael Shields writes ...
If you have to filter someone, better to filter the small guys.
You'll get fewer complaints than if you applied filters evenly.
So the complaint levels from the small guys are low enough that no one
needs to worry about? OK, then let them complain all they want.
(Of course prefix length != connectivity value. But it's all we have.)
Then we need more.
One way is to divide the IP space up into value tiers and bid for it.
I'm sure NSI would be more than willing to do this 
Oh, no. Not this thread again. Somehow I get the feeling that the
signal/noise ratio is about to taka a nosedive again.
This issues has been hashed, and re-hashed, to death on various
mailing lists, to include NANOG. I would suggest that if this
is an issue that you wish to discuss/pursue, please take it to
the PIARA mailing list: piara-request@apnic.net
- paul
Michael Shields writes ...
> If you have to filter someone, better to filter the small guys.
> You'll get fewer complaints than if you applied filters evenly.
So the complaint levels from the small guys are low enough that no one
needs to worry about? OK, then let them complain all they want.
That's not what I meant. I meant that if you have to filter someone,
*your customers* will complain less if you filter one of my /18s than
if you filter MIT. My network is less important to you. You should
spend less of your routers' resources maintaining connectivity to me
and more maintaining connectivity to MIT.