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

["TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>]

> My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6
> means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
> This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have to
> implement that.

Then work with them to break them of this dis-illusion.  


> I'm still not convinced though that, given DHCPv6 is going to be a reality
> for DNS assignment etc, that stateless autoconfig is needed and thus /64
> doesn't have to be the smallest we assign.

Yes and no.  You sound like you are of the belief that SLAAC is bad / deficient - while it may not be perfect, some are 
big fans of its ease of use ATLEAST in certain deployment models.