> Correct. My statement was for the protocol, not the forwarding. > That is why I made the follow-on comment about complexity. The > next-hop interface's ifindex for the global destination address > would have to be checked to ensure that it has the same zone ID > as the interface on which the packet was received. So, it leads > to more checks during forwarding AND requires the forwarding table > to potentially maintain multiple next-hops for the global addresses.
I don't think that is sufficient. If all the entries in the RIB for the prefix point outside the site then you have no choice but to drop the packet on the floor. If the sender had used a global source the packet would have made it through. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
