These were restrictions that existed in the previous version and things seemed to work well with these restrictions/sizes. I hear you and if others think the same, we could change the limits.
If /32 becomes the new default/minimum, keeping those limits seems to be counter-intuitive.
I agree. We should propose /48 as the _minimum_ allocation for all special purposes, maybe with possible provisions for more.
Aside from the difference between "ever need more" and "foreseeable future", this means that End Users will need to decide between /48 and /32. To pick a specific example, FOSDEM will apply for IPv6 PI soon. As they need more than one single /48, under that policy the seem to be _forced_ to a /32.
With a corporate hat on, I think it highly unlikely that anyone manager or sales person will be content with less than the absolute maximum they can get even if they don't need it. So save for a few corporations and maybe temporary allocations, I suspect everyone will go for a /32.
I agree that the either /48 with no room for expansion or /32 is too strict. I would go as far as to propose that End Users could request anything from /48 to /32 and also be limited to that. However, this may have implications on address reservations in RIPE, as was the case with LIRs being allocated a /32 but reserved a /29. So if to avoid renumbering and to encourage aggregation we end up allocating /48s, but reserving a /32 for each one, we probably will end up at the same point again. Furthermore, as the "LIR incentive", I'd restrict End User allocations to a /32. If you need more, you should become an LIR. ____________________________________ Tero Toikkanen Nebula Oy