IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: I-D Action: draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-01.txt

Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com> Wed, 27 March 2013 02:22 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangmingui@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F2F21F8499 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ejBHJs3NHRBg for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455FD11E80A2 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id APU98440; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:22:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:22:40 +0000
Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:22:51 +0000
Received: from NKGEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.233]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:22:46 +0800
From: Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>
To: Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net>, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-01.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOKjzdPlSU4jQyrUGb3fpynX3u9Ji4NowAgACOwdA=
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:22:46 +0000
Message-ID: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E732B08279@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <201303260342.r2Q3gklt021682@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com> <1A978525-A45A-425E-B418-9B2D317FC6A4@castlepoint.net> <CAGQUKcc1EfPTH7-S81BKLpmJr6OO_zKkCAqmOh35WP-e_W+_OA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGQUKcc1EfPTH7-S81BKLpmJr6OO_zKkCAqmOh35WP-e_W+_OA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.175]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:23:01 -0000

>Now that you mention it, datacenter or campus LANs would appear to be the
>biggest wins in terms of power and raw numbers of interfaces.
>IEEE seems like a better match in that case.  No idea if there are things going
>on in that venue.

As for "datacenter or campus LANs", I'd mention that ISIS can be used as the control protocol (e.g., TRILL and SPB). This is an area that matches IETF.

Mingui


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>Tony Tauber
>Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:15 AM
>To: Shane Amante
>Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-01.txt
>
>On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>	Thus, the only practical application I can see of power savings would be on
>copper interfaces at the deepest "edge" of the network, (U-PE to CE), but
>there's no active routing protocols on those interfaces.  And, although there's
>Layer-2 control protocols, e.g.: LLDP and the MEF's "Ethernet LMI", but I've not
>seen either of those achieve widespread deployment mostly because the CE
>devices do not support it, (yet).  But, we're the IETF, not the IEEE nor the
>MEF ... so, I'm not clear what the IETF would be able to work on here.
>
>
>Now that you mention it, datacenter or campus LANs would appear to be the
>biggest wins in terms of power and raw numbers of interfaces.
>IEEE seems like a better match in that case.  No idea if there are things going
>on in that venue.
>
>Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email