[ofw] RE: patch: Support APM on IBAL code

[Sean Hefty]

>I have applied the patch with Sean changes (2466), but one:
>The AV that is used to send the lap message is not the primary one, but the new
>loaded alternate path.
>
>I still need to understand how to use the primary path in this scenario.

I *think* what will end up happening with the existing code is that the LAP will
go across the alternate path, but the APR will come back over the primary path.
Since the use of the LAP path hasn't been approved by the remote endpoint, I
think you want to continue to use the existing primary path until migration
occurs.  It just seems a little more consistent, but in all likelihood, sending
the LAP on the proposed alternate path probably doesn't matter all that much,
and you could argue that using the proposed path tests it.

- Sean