On 22 Sep 2017, at 15:37, Tom Hill <tom.hill@bytemark.co.uk> wrote:

Because I don't see a way in which this policy will change anyone's
behaviour, or incentivise them differently over the current policy, I
don't believe it needs to be changed. If you would like, we can take
IPv6 adoption out of the argument completely, and I can still be solely
against it for the reason of changing the status quo on acceptable
prefix sizes for no perceivable gain to anyone.

So the problem we face with the DFZ I think is not specifically
"smallest prefix in the table" but "growth of number of entries over
time." Entries over time keeps going up, and RIR policies have very
successfully kept that growth contained.

"I've deaggregated our /19 to /24s to prevent hijacks." is the problem.

Legitimate traffic engineering is not the issue here, it's the blatant
disregard for the cost of TCAM across the DFZ versus the
selfish/misguided security requirements of certain network operators.

The concern is that those persons will, very quickly, deaggregate to the
minimum possible prefix size.

If you then fear that this deaggregation would spread to the rest of the
DFZ: yes, I share this fear. In fact I think we can be very sure that
this is coming, one way or another; Randy explained how based on history
earlier in the thread.

Yes, and I pointed out to Randy in response that the stakes are hell of
a lot higher than they were in 1995. Like, "we're not the butt of all
jokes" higher.