Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing community

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 07 February 2013 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 4174921F86FB for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:22:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSpVPbGGDV3u for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A810121F86D8 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:22:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id c11so3758091ieb.15 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:22:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+1kTqLBYtBl2wP96nBoshDlJxKtWOrWRxnQ6493LAK8=; b=tAxltYW6sKyqD4NKlhDEmjXBTRGnkRAZ2UeVbF3Nd47z448k8sXS0gL/jGC3V/uU1s NqBqQzFsC1GqWYW9uJfOV8Jdx7mCuOk+bBC0f9MC/lDKVTRE+sbRVgxHHRMw3wUZuO22 5Sw4uXAUXLOPwrEmYqnUsVX5mKoVVzDK607nayDXhkeAbkeShsbAUuTJdrIEGIDMukL4 RPsAdBjDHbpVQmUPatC6MD1n4euwYVGsIx+6pvSSePGJToYkjBTAfVwOilBP05k0WMbl FzeamXswoPBHymg+72r6eRkJIG1LGwmE96qaQZ+G5Rs8+gxoVtG7efAM9y+PmxsXUhbo O8rw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.153.198 with SMTP id vi6mr15680635igb.112.1360254135699; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.34.203 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:22:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <021A2E07-50AF-443C-AC4A-E61A28D57F6F@tony.li>
References: <201302061841.r16IfBn5084352@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com> <72B40FF5-6A29-4857-93AA-768490A20903@juniper.net> <021A2E07-50AF-443C-AC4A-E61A28D57F6F@tony.li>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:22:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfkiLQjSpopXN4KwUywuBam7h0zqo616dYA1SPOfOXGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing community
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f22c68190087f04d524d86a"
Cc: Shankar Raman M J <mjsraman@gmail.com>, 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: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:22:27 -0000

There are two different aspects to power-aware routing that I think are of
interest.
The first is developing a framework and method for evaluating different
possible solutions.
We had a discussion of draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-00 in RTGWG in July 2012.

The second is examining and considering control plane and routing solutions
in that context.
That seems to me to be more likely something for the IRTF, rather than the
IETF.

The former, however, is where I think that the IETF's operational knowledge
and experience
could be useful in framing what would be a useful solution.

Would it be possible to discuss this work that Balaji is presenting in that
context?
In other words, if the goal of the solution is X,Y, and Z, then this
mechanism seems useful/
not useful, has stability concerns, etc.

And then there are the questions about assumptions and goals...  All of
this is great to
discuss in RTGWG - there's been significant interest, but what is mature
enough for the
IETF vs. the IRTF and whether there are sufficient people to work in the
area is not clear.

Alia

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:

>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:07 AM, Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> > Do you think that optimizing a part of the network which gives only
> limited
> > overall savings is a worthwhile goal ?
>
>
> Hannes,
>
> I'll just point out that this argument that you and Eric are espousing is
> skirting dangerously close to the quagmire of business.  And we know from
> long experience that the IETF does not do business models.
>
> I'd like to strongly suggest that we simply restrict ourselves to the goal
> of saving power.  I think that we can agree, in general, that saving power
> is a worthwhile goal.  As to whether or not it is significant or makes
> economic sense is very much an issue that should be left to the operator
> community to decide.  Limited overall savings may be worthwhile in one
> context and pointless in another.
>
> I know of one country where they are purportedly mandating power
> reductions.  In such situations, saving that last watt is the difference
> between a fine and not.  On the other hand, in a situation where power is
> very cheap, it's obviously silly.
>
> Let's not argue about the marginal value of energy.  That's a business
> model issue.  Let's talk about how technology can actually save power.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>