RE: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS vto Proposed Standard

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

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.