Useful post, and +1 for deploying IPv6. Too few companies do it yet. Especially the "300 customer networks" sounds like a solid step forward!
One remark though: I'm not familiar with each and every RFC on the subject, do you mind using names instead of numbers? (I also discussed it before on the Security StackExchange: http://meta.security.stackexchange.com/q/1040/10863 ).
There are certain RFCs that become, "Common Parlance". In IPv4, RFC 1918 is very well known to be the 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16 private IP space. Likewise, in IPv6, RFC 4193 is the new "RFC 1918" - and, in common conversation, usually rolls off the (at least my tongue) more easily than, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" - which, often gets confused with (long deprecated) "Site-local unicast" addresses (FECO::/10, RFC 3513) anyways. By calling out the particularly RFC, we eliminate all the confusion, and save a lot of space.
I really did try my best to keep the number soup down (Notice I didn't call out RFC 6296 when mentioning IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation)- I only used two, (And also used the name when I introduced RFC 4193) - but RFC 4193 is so important, that I hope every IPv6 network engineer has it memorized as much as RFC 1918 is to every IPv4 network engineer.
With a technical audience (Which HN has its share of), though - Use of the RFC numbers is critical, as they point to specific implementations of the text description, and may contain nuance, or, indeed, very different implementation constraints, than the name alone suggests.
One remark though: I'm not familiar with each and every RFC on the subject, do you mind using names instead of numbers? (I also discussed it before on the Security StackExchange: http://meta.security.stackexchange.com/q/1040/10863 ).