No, not necessarily /48. The documents explicitly state that assignment
size should be be /64 "when it is known that one and only one subnet is
needed by design". See section 5.4.1 of the joint IPv6 Address
Allocation and Assignment Policy (aka ripe-246), or paragraph three of
RFC3177. This is definitely the case for most of the consumer market.
Since we are doing IPv6 trials at the moment here, the policy we have
defined so far, and plan to implement, is to assign a /64 each to
residential customer, and if they have "special needs" that qualify them
for a shorter prefix (i.e. subnetting needs), then they will be handled
on a case-by-case basis - just like requests for more IPv4 addresses are
today (where home users just get a single IP, but can have more by
asking for it).
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 12:34, Jasminko Mulahusic wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jakob Schlyter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: den 4 december 2002 12:21
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: IP limits from RIPE?
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Gordon Lennox wrote:
> > > But of course the arguments/numbers change dramatically
> > with IPv6... No?
> > with v6 each user could have their own /64. any
> > recommendations from ripe
> > on v6 addressing for soho-type users?
> > jakob