Would this proposal allow end users to request the transfer of a single IPv4 /32?  Or is that prevented by RIPE requiring parties to a transfer to be LIRs?  I am less worried about LIRs doing something stupid, but if it were allowed, I would guess that some end users would attempt to use /32 transfers the same way they use phone number portability.

IMO it might be better to preserve some sort of minimum transfer size.  Dropping it to a /24 (or farther) would make sense to me.  Going all the way to /32 seems unnecessary and a bit risky, unless there are other good safeguards in place to ensure that any entities transferring a /32 are really in a position to route it themselves, and aren't just trying to impose the routing externality on the rest of the global table (and blaming someone else when their IPv4 /32 announcement isn't accepted everywhere).

-Scott


On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Elvis Velea <elvis@velea.eu> wrote:
Hi Rob,

I was just about to make the same comments :)

I support the proposal although I would have proposed a minimum /24 (as it is in the other regions).

However, leaving the decision in the hands of the operators sounds good as well.

cheers,
elvis


On 24/03/14 16:05, Rob Evans wrote:
     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01
Overall I think this is a good thing, but I wonder if there is a reason
for leaving 5.4 (minimum sub-allocation size) as-is?

If we open the door to transfer prefixes smaller than a /24, should
sub-allocation of them be prevented?

The routing side of me, of course, might consider the alternative of
clamping the transfers at /24 too, but perhaps that should just be left
for consenting adults to negotiate between themselves.

Cheers,
Rob