%% You should probably cite draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-02 instead of this revision. @techreport{palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-01, number = {draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-01}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis/01/}, author = {Rosalea Roberts and Jordi Palet Martinez}, title = {{IPv6 Address Assignment to End-Sites}}, pagetotal = 11, year = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date.year' **, month = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date' **, day = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date.day' **, abstract = {The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) policies, have different views regarding the recommendation of the prefix to be assigned to end-sites. However, all them allow up to a /48 without further justification and clearly state that the exact choice of how much address space should be assigned to end-sites is a decision of each operator. This document reviews the architectural and operational considerations of end-site assignments, and reiterates that assignment policy and guidelines belong to the RIR community. This revision is being made to emphasize that IPv6 protocol evolution requires an ever-increasing availability of subnets at the end-site and so, policy should reflect that assignment of a single subnet is never appropriate. This document obsoletes RFC6177 (IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites).}, }