No-one has argued in favour of assigning just a /64 to an ordinary domestic connection. In fact, no-one is suggesting that ISPs should not be able to assign a /48 to a domestic connection, either.

The proposal you are presumably talking about suggests using a /56 as the unit for measuring how full an ISP’s allocation is. The issue the is being debated — and yes this is mostly by ISPs — is how much pain an ISP should bear before it can get more space. Should an ISP be required to pack more assignments into its allocation or should it have more breathing room and be able to put more hierarchy into its network?

If end users want to take part in discussions then they are welcome to do so. But there haven\’t been any proposals to cause extra pain to domestic Internet users yet.

To be more specific, the reference to the IPv6 prefix is connected to a recent discussion that popped up on the Ripe Address policy list.

To summarize, there might be a need in a few years from now to have several subnets on a home network. Thus, an ISP should allocate more than a /64 to CPEs, because one cannot subnet a /64.

RFC3177 recommends a /48 for home sites, but it is not the path RIRs have followed since. Agree, /48 may be overkill and certainly a /56 would be enough for home sites. This is a discussion we should have. Which forum holds that discussion is not really important as such, as long as the results are effectively implemented.

This may have consequences further down on the IP address allocations to ISPs. From an industrial point of view, the Linksys, D-Link and other home CPE manufacturers should be made aware their boxes may need to support subnetting in IPv6. Given these boxes can have a rather long lifetime, it may be worth planning ahead.

True, it should have been done earlier, true, the work pace is too slow, but there is something going one, the happy volunteers do work.