David,
If someone were to argue that, someone could reply that unless people
cheat, no IP address space is wasted because the registries still only
allocate based upon demonstrated need.
While "demonstrated need" is easy to say, it is much more difficult to actually verify, particularly when the demonstrated need is projected into the future.
One could even argue that a smaller
allocation policy saves IP space because it stops people from cheating by
asking for more IP space than they need.
Exactly. The RIRs are forced to balance conservation of the remaining free pool of addresses (the only thing the RIRs really have any control over and even that is pretty tenuous) with the number of route prefixes in the default free zone (something the RIRs have no control over but which ISPs do). Historically (since CIDR and 2050), the balance has been swung towards limiting the number of prefixes in the DFZ, primarily by restricting the number of new prefixes allocated (there were other policies, e.g., APNIC's policy permitting the return of multiple prefixes for a single prefix of the next largest CIDR block with no questions asked, but most of the focus has been on preventing new prefixes from being allocated).
move the balance back towards neutral a bit. Address space would be allocated for those applications that need to be announced in the DFZ but which don't represent a large amount of address space. Of course, figuring out exactly what those applications are will be a bit of a challenge for the policy makers, but hey, that's what they get paid for (well, if they got paid for doing it, of course).
I'm not sure I believe that this tragedy of the commons exists where people
route on allocation boundaries.
The tragedy of the commons exist because there is a limited resource, incentive to do the wrong thing, and disincentives to do the right thing. Until there are disincentives to do the wrong thing, e.g., filter routes, apply a charge to routes in the DFZ to encourage aggregation, etc., incentives to do the right thing, and/or the limitations in the DFZ are removed, you _will_ get a tragedy of the commons.
A distinct route for a distinct network of at
least some minimal value doesn't create a tragedy of the commons.
Of course it can.
Where you
do have a tragedy of the commons is where people place routes without
technical justification.
Technical justification does not remove the limitations on a resource, it merely allows triage as to who gets to use the resource.
Micro-allocations and filtering are treating symptoms. The underlying disease (rational route announcement policy) could conceivably be treated by applying standard market economics to the problem, but there hasn't yet been enough incentive to figure out how to do it (and/or get over the historical resistance to doing it).
Rgds,
-drc
Speaking only for myself
