- Modificato
itsmatteomanf (ammesso che non ne usino una per la connettività tra router e Vodafone stessa).
Sembrano usare la 2a02:8108::/48 per le p2p BNG-CPE (ci stanno 65k clienti in una /48) e le rimanenti per la prefix delegation.
Praticamente """buttano""" una /64 per la P2P e poi fanno i braccini corti con la prefix delegation 
dalmark Qui trovi tutte le best practice https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690
tldr:
IPv6 is not the same as IPv4
Assigning prefixes longer than /56 is strongly discouraged, so your choices are:
- If you want a simple addressing plan use a /48 for each end-user. This will work very well for customers coming from other ISPs, those that have their own ULA, or have been using transition mechanisms. This will also be easier when you have a mix of customers using the same infrastructure, whether they are residential customers, SMEs or even large corporates.
- Differentiate amongst types of customers, even if this will increase the complexity of your network and those of your customers, by offering /48 for business customers and /56 for residential customers.
In order to facilitate troubleshooting and have a future proof network, you should consider numbering the WAN links using GUAs, using a /64 prefix out of a dedicated pool of IPv6 prefixes. If you decide to use /127 for each point-to-point link, it is advisable to allocate a /64 for each link and just use one /127 out of it.
Non-persistent prefixes are considered harmful in IPv6 as you can't avoid issues that may be caused by simple end-user power outages, so assigning persistent prefixes is a safer and simpler approach
[...]
Many operators might perceive the assignment of large IPv6 prefixes to end customers as wasteful, but the reality is that decisions should be based on the IPv6 protocol architecture design. For example, Tony Hain calculated that assigning a /48 to every human on Earth, and never recovering those, will still mean that IPv6 would have a lifetime over the 480 years and we could repeat that several times
On that timescale, there will be other reasons, not just scarcity of IPv6 addresses, that will require the IETF to design a successor to IPv6.
, dubito che mettano le ftth in CG-NAT senza IPv6 comunque