Re: [recipe] And another new draft revision: Green Networking Metrics

Hi Alex,

thank you for the pointer to your past draft.  Apparently it was never 
posted in IETF but it can be found on ResearchGate. Clearly, the metrics 
associated with sending and receiving a packet in your draft are 
relevant also to the draft here. An interesting aspect from your draft 
is to express lower and upper bounds to express a range or degree of 
certainty.

What the Green Networking Metrics draft does not plan to address, but 
what is the focus of your prior work, concerns the specification of 
solutions that would actually make use of those metrics.  You mentioned 
that you had an implementation; could you share what happened with this 
and if it was found useful? It would be great to have some use cases 
with positive experience reports to point to.

Kind regards
--- Alex

(Crossposting to the e-impact mailing list as it was proposed to move 
the energy-related discussion from recipe to there.)

On 1/9/2023 6:30 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for this draft.
>
> I find it to contain some idea that was too valuable to some of us 
> here, a while back.  We wrote a draft about "Energy Metrics for IPv6 
> Links" but I cant remember whether we published it or not. See it 
> attached. (the missing 'a' from author is on purpose).
>
> We had an implementation of the IPv6 energy routing metrics in OSPF 
> and and RA, in a context of an in-home network and 
> IPv6-over-powerline-communications.
>
> For reading convenience I paste below the center of the ToC:
>
> 3. Energy Encoding as a Metric for Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
> 3.1. The Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
> 3.2. Other Concepts of Energy for Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
> 4. Energy Metric Option in Router Advertisement . . . . . . . . . 9
> 5. Energy Metric Encoded in RIPng RTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
> 6. Energy Metric Encoded in OSPF Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . 14
> 7. Potential Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
> 7.1. Common Representation of Energy Data . . . . . . . . . . . 18
> 7.2. Devices Lacking Energy Management Chipset . . . . . . . . 18
> 7.3. Energy-aware Default Route Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
> 7.4. Energy-aware Shortest Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
> 8. Hardware Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
> 8.1. OMAP TPS65950 MADC repr for Power Management . . . . . . . 19
> 8.2. PM7500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
> 8.3. Xscale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
> 9. How to Measure Energy for Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
> 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> Le 21/10/2022 à 05:53, Alexander Clemm a écrit :
>> As subject line:  FYI, we have just posted a new revision of 
>> draft-cx-green-metrics, "Green Networking Metrics", here: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cx-green-metrics/
>>
>> The updates are mostly of a relatively minor nature to provide 
>> further editorial quality.
>>
>> --- Alex (on behalf of coauthors)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> recipe mailing list
>> recipe@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe