Gyan> If we made the sending of MP TLV a MUST it would provide the similar type of backwards compatibility as BIG TLV with the capability TLV.
Advantage of doing it inside the protocol is that we eliminate configuration of enable/disable state default variations and are able to ensue backwards compatibility. So it’s similar but not the same. I guess MP TLV could introduce a similar capability TLV for backwards compatibility and then the backwards compatibility would be identical. [LES:] You are very confused - and your post is doing nothing but obfuscating the thread. If you wish to understand why please take it offline with me. Les _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
