Hi Stephen,
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Stephen Shew wrote:
I don't know if the pun was intended, but I do like Kireeti's comment about
"bring them to light".
You're laser sharp, Stephen! :-)
Undoubtedly, this would be within the ITU-T (wavelength) grid! ;-)
After the discussions we've had, I wouldn't dare not comply.
There is, I think, some commonality in the comments and the reply in that
the intent is to generalize the extensions needed for routing to accomodate
non-PSC resources. I agree with the first 4 points that Jonathan made in
that I think layer information must be included in routing so that important
functions can be performed.
Okay. Can you provide text?
I believe that the use of one or two bandwidth
values was motivated by the desire to use a "lowest common denominator"
attribute to generalize on path computation and avoid extensive details of
links. Unfortunately, this can obscure variable adaptation on a link and
the ability to determine a path at a particular adaptation (e.g., VC-3).
You're right on both counts (about LCD, and about obscuring info).
The thinking was (a) let's see how far we can get with just the LCD;
(b) as we learn more, we can incorporate them, ideally in the SDH
routing doc.
Thoughts?
Kireeti.