ARIN could decide to issue /32's to dialup customers so they could
change providers without renumbering and it would do no good since nobody
would carry those routes.
This is an excellent suggestion, and I have made it to RIPE people
from time to time when this issue comes up.
Some slow-start fine-tuning means that technonerds with DSL, cable,
dialup and so on and several PeeCees might grow into a /28 someday!
(Or is that a /48?)
[It would] harm the net as a whole if RIRs adopted a
microallocation policy that ... resulted in ... allocating
non-routable IP space.
Not really. It would force some issues that people would rather
not deal with. Most notably, it would force the issue of how
providers exchange reachability information, which has languished
while the same providers have focused on how providers exchange
traffic attracted by that reachability info.
Right now, the RIRs seem to understand how the conversations
along the lines of "if you send me <prefix x> i will route it to
you as long as you route <prefix y> to me" enough that they
don't actually have to happen bilaterally. Maybe that could
change, given that at least one of the RIRs is developing
some opinions on how those conversations SHOULD work rather
than how they WOULD work.
Any catharsis of spurious morality couched in "for the good of the Internet"
(or the small guy or the small ISP or the big banks, or whoever your
favourite cause is) rhetoric is always welcome, by me.
Don't make any sense. That was my point in replying to you. There is no
right to a route in my router. If you want a route in my router, you better
find out what routes I'm willing to carry and under what terms.
Is it still, loosely, "did you get this prefix/mask allocated by an RIR"?
Or are things breaking down already?