v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

>> I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
>> an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable
>> modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
> IPv4 thinking.
> A single /64 isn't enough for a home user, because their gateway is a
> router and needs a different prefix at both sides. Users may also want
> to subnet their own network. So they need at least something like a /60.

This is not a "maybe", Mr. Gilmore. It's repeating the same mistakes of

Mr. van B, your comments would be laughable if they weren't so absurdly
horrific. I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
address for all of them.

  Good for you. You don't need what NAT breaks.

  The rest of us are sick and tired of a artificially crippled
  network that NAT brings and all the additional costs
  associated with trying to talk with someone behind a NAT.

I have 2 private /24's using a single public
IPv4 address right now -- as they have been for 6+ years. Yet, in the new
order, you're telling me I need 18 billion, billion addresses to cover 2
laptops, a Wii, 3 tivos, a router, and an access point? Did we suddenly
jump 20 years into the past? This is the exact same bull**** as the /8
allocations in the early days of IPv4. The idea of the "connected home"
is still nowhere near *that* connected; no matter how many toys you have
in your bathroom, it doesn't need a /96 of it's own. (which is an entire
IPv4 of it's own.)

  No it doesn't need that many address. No one has ever said
  that it does.

  Does it really matter that 64 bits are set aside for the local
  part of the IPv6 address as long as there is enough address space
  for everyone to get the networks they need?
  By your own admission it does need multiple networks however.
  The address allocation policies are design to give everyone the
  networks that they need.

Why do people avoid and resist IPv6... because it was designed with blind
ignorance of the history of IPv4's mistakes (and how we *all* run our IPv4
networks.) Dooming us to repeating ALL those mistakes again. Exhibit A:
With IPv6 Address Autoconfiguration (tm) (patent pending), you don't need
DHCP. *face plant*

  So all of us running IPv6 networks using stateless autoconf
  are using something that does not work?

  BTW stateless autoconf and DHCP are complementry technologies.