8 Dec
2011
8 Dec
'11
10:53 p.m.
Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not.
I'd like to have it back to discussion. My position is only formal: The proposal argues that a requirement (multihoming) is not longer needed, because there might be an other (assumed to be weaker) condition (own AS) for PIv6. I do accept the reasoning itself, but not the formal consequence drawn by the proposal. If somebody likes to have "A or B" instead of "A", it's not sufficent to remove "A".