%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites instead of this I-D.
@techreport{narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05,
    number =    {draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary/05/},
    author =    {Dr. Thomas Narten and Geoff Huston and Rosalea Roberts},
    title =     {{IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites}},
    pagetotal = 10,
    year =      2010,
    month =     jul,
    day =       12,
    abstract =  {RFC 3177 argued that in IPv6, end sites should be assigned /48 blocks in most cases. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) adopted that recommendation in 2002, but began reconsidering the policy in 2005. This document revisits and updates the RFC 3177 recommendations on the assignment of IPv6 address space to end sites. The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is a policy issue under the purview of the RIRs, subject to IPv6 architectural and operational considerations. This document reviews the architectural and operational considerations of end site assignments as well as the motivations behind the original 3177 recommendations. Moreover, the document clarifies that a one-size-fits-all recommendation of /48 is not nuanced enough for the broad range of end sites and is no longer recommended as a single default. This document updates and replaces RFC 3177.},
}