Personally, I am STILL waiting for RFC1776 support as well; I find both the 32b and 128b constraints to be unacceptably small for use as address fields.  1696B is far more appropriate ... 



On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 08:54, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Nick, this proposal is far-reaching and deserves the fullest consideration by the WG. I trust there will be plenty of time to discuss it at RIPE60 before it passes to the other RIRs because of its global implications. [Perhaps an ad-hoc study group is needed to thoroughly research this topic?] However I feel implementation of this policy proposal will have to wait until the NCC has been able to support RFC1437.




--
/TJ