Well from sentiment I pick up from nanog lists and last nanog meeting it does not seem many provides are actually worried about the size of the internet routing table anymore. Use to be the main objection to routing table growth was the fear of core routers become expensive space heaters . I am inferring here that routers have caught up and then some handling larger and larger tables. So why is there still so much resistances to supporting multi-homed customers that, shock horror, involves providers advertising more discreet routes that are in the middle of their cider blocks? I am guessing administrative overhead is main objection now. The whole micro-allocation conversation show provider willingness to allow growth in the routing tables. I have my flame retardant suit on so go for it. The next good question is what do providers think the remaining headroom, prefix and route wise, is remaining in the main stream platforms (rsp/4, gsr, m40,etc). I am assuming this is not main mem size issue since routers these day can take in obnoxious amounts of memory. Guessing again more of a cpu capacity and (for dCef type implementation) line card memory related issue. - Dustin - ps. Excuses like my network still runs on an AGS+ will not cut it. :-)