Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for the comments.  I’ve provided some comments (RW) inline …

From: Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 21:09
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <mpalmero=[e-mail]>, Ops Area WG <[e-mail]>, E-Impact IETF <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]>, Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>, Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]>, Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <[e-mail]>, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example
Hi, Rob,

Thanks for the comprehensive email, and for your desire to support the industry towards improved energy efficiency!

RW: Great!  I think that at least our broader goals are aligned here, although you seem to disagree on the particular path that I’m pushing for.  I’m hoping that we can manage to get alignment, working towards the common good.


My first reaction is that this direction seems counter to and in conflict with the conclusion and decisions from the IAB Program eimpact “interim” from just a month before:
·         See Chair Slides<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01>, that codified: "Metrics – Push through the WGs” (etc. etc.)
·         See Minutes<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/minutes-interim-2024-eimpact-02-202402161500-00>, that captured: "Suresh agreed and mentioned that the reason for having the drafts here is that people to get higher level view since all working groups need to have a sustainability angle"
RW: Sorry, I had a conflict and couldn’t attend the e-impact interim.  My previous understanding was based on when this was discussed between the IESG and IAB retreat last summer was that the IAB program was for more future looking working, and incubating ideas that were not yet ready to be standardized but any actual work would happen in IETF WGs.

A second thought is that, while on the surface getting a couple of document with ‘green metrics’ is useful and might seem net-positive, knee-jerk reacting on tactics misaligned with strategy can further fragment the Eimpact work (which already can be characterized as ‘having a hard time finding itself’ with work from 2022 and no output).

RW: Sorry, but I don’t really follow.  Why would standardizing metrics and power controls now impact the overall strategy?  This is perhaps where I see things quite differently.  I see this as a simple split between what we can standardize now, relatively quickly, starting to reap the benefits now vs spending a long time discussing what we plan to do before taking any action.


There are clear risks like (1) believing that metrics/models are the ultimate goal of “eimpact/green’ work, while (as mentioned on eimpact) there’s no analysis of the most useful focus area, and (2) forgetting what Suresh wrote that many WGs need ‘green’, and this would separate work in a corner, as opposed to embedding and integrating it.

RW: I don’t believe that metrics/models are the ultimate goal at all, but they do seem like a useful first step.  Further, the purpose of this proposed WG isn’t really to create new work, but to better corral the existing work that folks are already trying to get started within the IETF now, and as I see it, struggling to get traction.


A third thought is that we had asked for a (broader and more e-impactful) WG a year ago, and that was shot down in favor of this IAB Program :-|

RW: When I was an AD, both in the previous side meetings and in the IESG/IAB retreat I was also a vocal proponent for creating a WG, and yes, the agreement at that time (9-10 months ago) that we should start with the IAB e-Impact program, and that the work could proceed in existing WGs.  However, I’ve since seen “green” related drafts being presented in OPSAWG, within IVY and it was on the agenda for NETMOD.  I.e., it looks to me like there is work ready to progress now but looking for a good home.  The issue here is that this work isn’t obviously and clearly in charter for any of these WGs except maybe OPSAWG.  IVY is meant to be specifically focussed on a base inventory YANG model and should concentrating on that task until it is complete. Alas, one of the downsides of OPSAWG is that it’s made up of different groups of individuals working on their own topics and lacks the cohesiveness and collective direction that a dedicate WG could provide.


Fourth, ‘green-bof’ is very very broad, while I understood your desired scope to be narrow. This would eclipse eimpact as the shinny new ball, and would potentially confuse people on where to participate (outside the lucky ones that attended a side meeting)

RW: green-bof is just a list name.  I don’t really care what the BOF or WG is called.  My intention is that the scope of the WG that I’m trying to create is that it will be narrow to the work items that are achievable in the short term.  Regarding participation, for me, I would suggest that interested folks may wish to participate in both: E-impact for overall strategy and longer-term considerations of how we should evolve our protocols.  The new WG for short term focused work on green related work that is understood well enough and that we can get standardized now, in the short term.

Fifth, and Lastly — frankly I was debating with myself whether to mention this privately or not, but since you brought it up and opened the topic — another issue. Backdrop: BOF and WG-forming suggestions were sent to /dev/null favoring the IAB Program as the solution. What follows is a set of factual observations and no judgement or intentionality attached to them. But there’s (1) cisco proponents and cisco side-meeting organizer despite the eimpact interim, (2) with a Cisco-only I-D [1], (3) a Cisco AD meeting with (4) a Cisco IAB Member, in the (5) historically least attended meeting, and change direction 180 degrees… Again, no extrapolation or conclusion, but even from an appearance or optics perspectives.

RW: Right, my drive for encouraging this work is not as Cisco employee, but was as an AD, and as someone who feels that environment impact is a significant issue to humanity and I would rather the IETF takes steps towards standardizing something now in the short term (noting that it can always evolve over time) than to spend 3 years having discussions before taking concrete action.

Because of the timing of the side meeting, the discussion didn’t really end up being about particular drafts at all, but instead focused on what drafts currently exist in this space.  My brief, very rough notes that I captured were:

Alex:
Green Networking Metrics OPSAWG
Data models could be derived
NMRG problem statement
Sustainability considerations

Luis:
APi for getting energy data from routers, SD WAN focus

Tony Li:
Traffic engineering, optimize across the network, greatest benefit is turning off parts of network device rather than just reducing traffic.  YANG module to disable links across the system.

Qin: + Carlos (BMWG draft currently):
Controlller level model, reporting and configuration, benchmark and test invididual devices. Reference work from other SDOs

Marisol/Jan:
Sustainability insights doc
Telemetry philatelist. (collecting telemetry data in general + green metrics + device level control
Power - Data model for devices, YANG based, or other protocols
Telemetry to TSDB mapping doc

RW: I.e., it seems to be me that there are multiple folk from different companies who are all interested in directly working on this, and this is why I suggested within that meeting that I thought that it would be helpful to target a WG forming BOF, with a narrow charter to focus on the items achievable in the short term.  My goal is to help connect these folks together and help give them the tools to help succeed.  For me, the benefits of a dedicate WG are: (i) Interested parties know where to go, and where to target their work, where to have discussions (ii) Guaranteed dedicated agenda time rather than competing with all other topics happening within these WGs.  (iii) an easy ability to hold virtual-interims to progress this work more quickly.

Yes, I continue contributing in the industry and field to this topic, and I would cautious you consider a bigger picture to see what approach(es) actually help.

RW: Sorry, I still don’t follow.  Reporting power metrics off devices (to management agents can get better current information about what the actual power usage is), and the ability to selective disable ports, forwarding ASICs, linecards, etc … seems like an obvious first step.  What is the bigger picture that I’m missing here?


I hope and trust these are useful and clear,

RW: Sure.  I still believe that this is significant interest and energy to target a WG forming BOF for IETF 120.  Perhaps, initially, you would be willing to participate and help in that effort to scope what such a WG could look like?  If, after we get into the details, you still believe that it is the wrong path, or we can’t get consensus on what work we want to do then you can of course drop out at any time, or indeed speak at the BOF (if it gets scheduled) to indicate why you think that this isn’t the best path forward.  Does that seem like a reasonable/pragmatic way forward?

Regards,
Rob


Best,

Carlos.

[1] I did not see a response to this:

RW: I’m not familiar with this draft/work, but I only see Cisco authors listed currently.  But my understanding is that others have proposed similar drafts leveraging similar ideas, e.g., draft-cwbgp-ivy-energy-saving-management-01, that you are an author on, and which I also haven’t read …. However, it is also worth noting that draft-cwbgp-ivy-energy-saving-management-01 is targeted at the IVY WG, which I believe that is outside the scope of the current IVY WG charter, at least until the core inventory YANG model is completed and the WG recharters.



Poweff authors,

Is Poweff still a Cisco-only effort, as recorded in https://youtu.be/m4vpThE5K9c?feature=shared&t=3534? Verbatim youtube transcript:
Many of the um products uh that we have uh mainly in Cisco right we are still looking into multivendor and this will be really good for um the participants to um provide feedback how this H um standardization of the data model might impact in your network equipment but um

Thanks!

Carlos.






On Mar 25, 2024, at 10:48 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

During IETF 119, I had a couple of discussions with Suresh and Mahesh regarding how we actual get some of the short term “green” related work happening in IETF to get critical mass and cross review and get published in the short term.  This seemed to somewhat culminate during the Power Metrics side meeting where it is clear that:

·         Various folks, representing different organizations, have various drafts related to Green networking.

·         Currently these drafts are spread out to different working groups, have various amounts of overlap, and it is unclear that they currently have a good homes and sufficient traction in IETF to progress effectively.

·         There was support in the meeting to target a WG forming BOF for IETF 120 to create a new WG with a limited targeted charter.

Hence the proposal from Suresh and I was to try and help coordinate for a WG forming BOF for IETF 120 scoped specifically to work on items that are understood and achievable in the short term.  E.g., roughly, I currently think of this work scope as being: e.g., energy related terminology and definitions (that should try and leverage and reference existing definitions from existing published sources), reporting energy and sustainability at the device and network layer via operational YANG models, and to facilitate configuration or YANG RPCs to influence and optimise power usage on network devices.  Longer term energy efficiency and Green networking goals are intended to be out of scope for the proposed WG’s initial charter, and should continue to be discussed as part of the E-Impact IAB program.  The exact scope of the charter would be worked out between the interested parties in the coming weeks.
I’m happy to try and help this work gain traction within the IETF.  I appreciate that several of the proponents for this work are also from Cisco, but I have no vested interest other than trying to help the industry take small steps that may help improve energy efficiency in networks (e.g., reporting power usage, and as Tony suggests by selectively powering off ports or linecards) to try and help mitigate some of the impacts of the Internet on climate change.

To that end the proposed next steps from that side meeting were:

1.      For me to request the creation of new open “green-bof” mailing list from Mahesh (hopefully should be done over the next few days).

2.      I asked for, and received, permission to subscribe those who attended the side meeting, but once created, I also intended to circulate the existence of the mailing list to e-impact, and other places where related discussions have been taking place, so that others can join.

3.      To create a github location where we can reference drafts and collecting work on a BOF proposal and draft charter for the WG (which as I stated above, should be narrowly scoped to only the work that is well understood and achievable in the short term).  If I can get this under the IETF github space, great, otherwise I can host a personal github.  I’m already checking with Mahesh on the feasibility of the github location being IETF hosted.

4.      Once the mailing list is up and running, the next step is to arrange a few virtual meetings to try and gain consensus on the proposed initial scope of the WG, and to start reviewing and pulling together the BOF proposal, and charter text.

5.      To submit a BOF request for IETF 120.  The key dates being:

a.      Warn the IESG and Secretariat that we are hoping for a BOF by 22nd April (note Mahesh is already aware and this has already been informally flagged to the IESG)

b.     Get the initial BOF submission in before 5th May

c.      Refine the BOF proposal based on feedback received, and update by 7th June

d.     14th June, we hear back whether the BOF has been approved for IETF 120

e.      Continue prepping slides, etc, for the BOF, running up to early July

6.      In my experience, despite it being 4 months between IETF meetings, the time invariably disappears quickly, so I think that we need to frontload the BOF preparation effort to achieve consensus at IETF 120 for creating a working group.

Anyone else in the side meeting, please feel free to add anything that I have missed, or correct me, if I have misrepresented anything.

Carlos, hopefully you are also interested in participating in these efforts.  If you have any feedback on the planned approach I would be glad to hear it.

Regards,
Rob


From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 12:01
To: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <mpalmero=[e-mail]<mailto:mpalmero=[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example
+Jari

Hello,

Suresh, Jari,

I'm confused by this bullet point:
•              next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design Team, call for a BOF?

Could you please clarify?

I understood there's no WG (and hence no WG coordination nor status), in favor of the IAB Program. There cannot be a WG Design Team without a WG. I cannot find "design team" or 'BOF" (WG forming or not?) in the minutes of eimpact meetings<https://datatracker.ietf.org/program/eimpact/meetings/>, maybe I missed it.

Is this an effort parallel to eimpact or a shadow meeting?

Poweff authors,

Is Poweff still a Cisco-only effort, as recorded in https://youtu.be/m4vpThE5K9c?feature=shared&t=3534? Verbatim youtube transcript:
Many of the um products uh that we have uh mainly in Cisco right we are still looking into multivendor and this will be really good for um the participants to um provide feedback how this H um standardization of the data model might impact in your network equipment but um

Thanks!

Carlos.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:30 PM Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <mpalmero=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear all,

We have booked a side meeting in Brisbone,  IETF #119
Thursday 9:00 am local time.
Headline: Power Metrics: concrete usage example


Please see the agenda that we are proposing:

•              Overview of ongoing sustainability work in IETF (everyone contributes)
•              Brief presentation of sustainability insights/poweff updates, incl. look at a more concrete example
•              Any other short updates?
•              next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design Team, call for a BOF?


As we would like to leave time to discuss and review **next steps**, for the overview we propose not more than 20 min.
As authors from specific drafts, please let me know which draft(s) you would like to review, we would like to make sure that we could fit them into the 20 min

Safe travels, and have a nice weekend

Marisol Palmero, on behalf of the authors of sustainability insights& poweff drafts

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg