Kurt Erik Lindqvist;
If you estimate that you will continue to be very small, you could use a /40 or such from one of your upstream ISPs (which is a problem *today*, as there are not enough upstream ISPs, indeed).
This doesn't fly. He can't set his own routing policy and he can't multihome.
Kurt, as I made presentation in front of you and Brian Carpenter at multi6 WG meeting of IETF58 in Minneapolis on Nov. 2003, it is possible for a small ISP delegated address blocks from multiple larger ISPs and can still have its own policy. Since then, you made no counter argument against my presentation that it is your fallacy to say things against the presentation. For those of you who are not familiar with my (expired) draft used at the meeting, it is available at: http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ohta-multihomed-isps-00.txt The interim conclusion of the draft is: Thus, it is not essential that ISPs have their own TLAs.
If he changes the single upstream his customers needs to renumber.
If one changes homing, one needs to renumber, of course. But, it has nothing to do with multihoming or hierarchical ISPs. Just as we shouldn't discourage customers change ISPs, we shouldn't discourage ISPs change upper level ISPs.
So shall we abandon it?
Yes.
No.
In favour of *what* to replace it?
RIR membership.
No. It is proven not to scale. Does it mean that it is beneficial for you if RIRs have more power even though it sacrifices ISPs and users of the Internet by requiring routers with a lot more routing table entries than necessary? Masataka Ohta