My frame of reference is that while we need to make the addresses big enough, we also need to preserve the hierarchy. There is no shortage of addresses, nor will there be, ever, but there could be a shortage of levels in the hierarchy. I assume you would like a home to have a /48? But, from my provider's /32, that is only 4 levels at the assumed nibble boundary. I think my provider could use another two levels.
If your provide has more than 10,000 customers they should never have gotten a /32. The braindead notion that everyone needed to rush out and get a /32 has not helped get IPv6 deployed. The /32 value was the default one for a startup provider. Every provider with a customer base should have done a plan for a /48 per customer, then gotten the right size block to start with. Any provider with a /32 and more than 10k customers needs to do that now and swap for 'a real block', instead of trying to squeeze their customers into a tiny block due to their insufficient initial request.
ARIN proposal 121 is seeking to clarify this in the NRPM. I've also submitted a similar proposal to APNIC and expect it to be published shortly and discussed in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, I won't be in Hong Kong for the discussion, but, I'm going to try and participate remotely. I encourage anyone facing the /32 is not enough problem at the service provider (or anyone else for that matter) to get involved and speak up in favor of proposal 121 and/or the APNIC equivalent. I intend to put forth similar proposals where necessary in the other RIRs as well. Owen