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.