Re: IPv6 Address Planning

[bmanning]

> I'm very much oppossed to /56 because it's still more than most users  
> need. In and of itself that doesn't matter, but it's also less than  
> what some users need. This creates the situation where people try to  
> make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all  
> those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. I.e., /56 provides too much  
> potential for shooting yourself in the foot.

	ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6
	is pretty much a myth?

--bill