I don't see any problem with doing proxy aggregation with notification only when the aggregatee is unwilling or unable to cooperate.
What will be much more destabilizing than doing proxy aggregation will be the collapse of non-64Mbyte routers as the routing table continues to grow.
Proxy aggregation may lead to some suboptimal routing, and to a practical inability to do some forms of policy-based routing, but those are minor problems compared to ignoring people who won't or can't aggregate on their own.
Lastly, I think that anyone who insists that everyone else ignore a serious technical crisis only in order to satisfy their political policy requirements is more than a little selfish.
Sean.
My point was not that proxy aggrigation is wrong, just that it can't be done without consent. There will be aggrigates which have limited advertisment range, and forcing them into a larger aggrigate will open them to exposure they are explicitly required to avoid. Making the simple-minded statement that suboptimal routing is MINOR shows a lack of understading of the true nature of the underlying circuits. If all circuits were equal capacity and capable of carrying the entire load on their own it would be a minor problem, but none of them are, or are they ever likely to be. I don't think anyone is ignoring the seriousness of the current problems. As some of you will recall, a long time ago I was not optimistic about rate of CIDR deployment and thought we should delay the block allocation of Class C's. At that time I was accused of ignoring the serious problem of depletion of Class B's. We are all trying to make this enterprise work and each of us has to do the best we can with the tools available. However that does not extend to allowing anyone to force its operation model on anyone else. Tony