Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing community

In message <CAG4d1rfkiLQjSpopXN4KwUywuBam7h0zqo616dYA1SPOfOXGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Alia Atlas writes:
> 
> 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.

Can you point to any message on the RTGWG mailing list?  I searched
locally for draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp and found none except a few
related to meeting agenda scheduling.

draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp is a 00 individual draft that has expired.

I just looked at this for the first time and I'm not at all convinced
that it is useful.

IMO this is not a useful framework and also proposes techniques that
are unlikely to have much if any impact (such as Section 5.4.
Introducing Jitter Through Microsleeps and Section 5.4.1.  An Example
of Microsleeps to Reduce Energy Usage.

> 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

If we did have a useful requirements or framework, then it might be
useful to evaluate some new approach against it, but IMO we don't.

I don't think this is even material ready for IRTF consideration, but
that is up to Tony and IRTF to decide.

Curtis

> 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