[Green] Re: [Lsr] Next steps for draft-many-lsr-power-group-02

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

I think there is no question that power consumption issues are relevant to routing decisions. What is not clear is what strategies will be seen as useful to deploy.

The draft proposes extensions to IGPs to send power related information.

This will significantly increase the amount of information advertised by the IGPs and require every IGP enabled node in the network to store and flood this additional information. This information is of no direct value to the operation of the protocol. It is used - in ways not yet fully specified - by a small number of nodes and/or controllers to determine when to signal given power groups to be shut down or powered up.

Justification of this additional load on the protocols requires further discussion. In particular, is the strategy proposed by the draft (powering "power groups" on/off based on some heuristics) a strategy which is seen as a desirable solution by network operators.

I think before the WG begins serious work on this proposal we should have an indication that network operators see this as a solution they want to deploy. To date, I have not seen any input from network operators.

Coordinating/being consistent with the work in the Green WG is certainly a desirable goal - but I think the more important consideration at this time is whether the work is seen as a desirable solution by network operators.

I appreciate that the draft authors are enthused and have empirical evidence of the potential value their solution offers - but this is not the same as having input from network operators. All protocol vendors (myself included) think we have the best solution. :-)

My $.02.

    Les


From: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:05 PM
To: lsr <[e-mail]>
Cc: “[e-mail]” <[e-mail]>; ops-ads <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [Lsr] Next steps for draft-many-lsr-power-group-02


Hi lsr-wg, green-wg, et al.,

The authors of draft-many-lsr-power-group-02 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-lsr-power-group/) have requested early code-point allocation. As this is normally done after WG adoption we would like to move forward on that front first.

The GREEN wg chairs have expressed interest in this draft as far as not wanting to be developing at cross-purposes with the work from GREEN.

A proposed way forward that came from discussions between the LSR and GREEN chairs and ADs would be for LSR to adopt this document as experimental and move it forward with the addition of some text. The text would state that work is on going in the IETF to define a broad power framework and that future solutions may be proposed to incorporate this work.

Additionally, GREEN is asking the authors to review the green framework draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bcmj-green-power-and-energy-yang/) and attempt to align where possible, and avoid incompatabilty if possible (e.g., consider terminology and hierarchy where different).

If the work is adopted then LSR would request constructive review and feedback from GREEN for any changes that can be made to improve the LSR work with the goal of moving the work forward.

The LSR chairs and ADs believe the intention of the authors is to get solution quickly deployed to start making immediate progress on power saving. The interest from GREEN WG is that if we do this we indicate it’s an experimental approach and we make an effort to allow for later solutions that would incorporate the more comprehensive framework that they are working on.

Additionally, it has been pointed out that GREEN WG should be able to benefit from the real-world experience gained from deployments of the experiment LSR RFC.

This email services as an opportunity to raise concerns with this plan to move forward.

Thanks, Lsr Chairs.