One could argue that the RIRs are wasting address space by allocating on arbitrary boundaries, e.g., /20s, instead of allocating according to documented requirements.
If someone were to argue that, someone could reply that unless people cheat, no IP address space is wasted because the registries still only allocate based upon demonstrated need. One could even argue that a smaller allocation policy saves IP space because it stops people from cheating by asking for more IP space than they need.
One could also argue that the "sane" allocation policies of the RIRs have resulted in ISPs not being forced to figure out how to apply effective mechanisms to limit route prefix growth and as a direct result created a tragedy of the commons in the DFZ.
I'm not sure I believe that this tragedy of the commons exists where people route on allocation boundaries. If I make Sprint carry an extra route just for my little network, that helps all Sprint customers reach my little network. I may not have many hosts, but Sprint has many, and each of those reach my just a bit better. A distinct route for a distinct network of at least some minimal value doesn't create a tragedy of the commons. Where you do have a tragedy of the commons is where people place routes without technical justification. A sane microallocation policy shouldn't exacerbate this. In any event, historically the dog has wagged the tail and the tail has wagged the dog. DS