* Gert Doering:
Which is touching the core of the problem:
"can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my routers"?
Ideally, that would be someone who pays for this kind of service. The fewer prefixes there are, the more feasible this approach will be. 8-)
LIRs seem to be a good choice, because many (most?) of them *do* allocate for third parties (which is a good thing for global aggregation) - and even for those that don't, the fact that there is a recurring fee involved shifts the balance a bit away from "PI is purely convenient for the holder and puts the costs only on everybody else" to "a portable IP block *does* have some costs attached".
In principle, such an effect is desirable. But I would be very surprised if the majority of end users with IPv4 PI didn't pay a monthly fee for non-mass-market Internet connectivity. This means that they actually need PI, or they don't care that much because the price difference still isn't large enough. In the latter case, a rather significant fee is needed to turn global inconvenience into a local one.