> I believe the tables could be similarly collapsed giving source address > higher precedence than destination address. Do you disagree?
mmm, it seems I failed to explain something since that's not the point… Did you agree that: 1. destination first give the correct behaviour as-is. 2. source first needs extra mechanism and route duplication. So we can do it, but we don't *want* so! I was pointing out that it's also what is behind this draft, even if not explicitly said. I'm probably missing something: why would you like "the FIB organization described in section 3"? Matthieu _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
