We are now closer to running out of Router capability than IP numbers to hand out. A rational solution to that would be to allocate IP space in a manner such that we don't run out of Router capability before we run out of IP space, by assigning easier-to-route, larger CIDR blocks to large providers, and allowing growth space in allocations so that small allocations can grow without having to add more announcements. If the allocating agencies continue to insist on being as sparing as possible with block allocations, which is noticably increasing routing problems, then we are going to face Internet partitions sooner rather than later, based on router load rather than running out of IP space. This is, in my opinion, a poor choice for overall growth.
But note well that current routers can't last forever (if you want them to we might as well give the next 120 requestors a class A chunk and then forget about address allocation altogether), and if you're looking for short-term relief address allocation policy is not the place to get it. Because the current forwarding table size is a result of the integral of all past allocation policies, it takes a while (a year or two, certainly, a lifetime in this industry) for any current address allocation changes to have any measureable effect. If you really need it, a much more effective method to get short term relief is to squeeze some of the "history" out of the forwarding table. The 192.* block, and some of the high 190's, look like swamps that are ripe for the picking. Dennis Ferguson