FWIW, I have no objection to specifying a new code, but I don't think adding a "working address" option is feasible or useful.
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Christian Huitema wrote: > In a site exit scenario, ingress filtering is performed either at the > ingress interface of a router, or at one of the exit interfaces on the > router. I suggest that the source address of the router's ICMP message > should be one of the global scope addresses associated to that specific > interface. This gives a strong hint to the host: among the source > addresses that can be tried, pick the one that is the best match for the > router's interface. I believe that all router implementations pick the source address of the generated ICMP error messages based on the outgoing interface of the message: this would be toward the site's internal infrastructure, and would very likely include addresses from all the prefixes. So this would probably not help in this specific case, unless you want to make a specific exception (which might have some obvious problems). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
