Re: [mpls] draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 for wg document

["Nitin Bahadur" <nitinb at juniper.net>]

> My main issue is that a FEC Swap is different from FEC tunneling and
> that the use of the FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV is not warranted. A reply
> with the Target FEC stack TLV is sufficient.
> 
> My proposal to the authors was to make the FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV
> optional and to limit its use to indicate the FEC being traced is
> entering or exiting a tunnel or tunnels.

I believe we had that discussion on the WG mailing list. And I had
mentioned reasons as to why FEC Swap is better than sending the full FEC
stack in the reply.

Nitin
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls