>Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set >of problems.
Perhaps, time moves ever forward. >A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6). Setting >the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own statically is >insane and will blow out provider's own routing tables more than is >rational. (Think of the processing overhead of all the DSL/Cable customers >going up and down). This is going to be far more of an issue and drive >network design than a minor blow out in the v6 routing table. However, many do not "have" DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not capable. Also - does DHCPv6 currently have an option for prefix length? Just asking. WRT /64s (or really, /56s and /48s being assigned to clients) - note that these are NOT static assignments permanently belonging to the client. They are hopefully dynamic, hopefully via DHCPv6-PD (hopefully available/supported by then) ... similar to the single public IPv4 address most of us dynamically get @home today. AND, how does having a route for a /56 impact my routing table more than having a route for a /xx (something longer)?? It does mean the ISP needs a larger initial allocation, but still just one route ... /TJ
