Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03

Balaji venkat Venkataswami <balajivenkat299@gmail.com> Tue, 28 August 2012 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <balajivenkat299@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 DCBD011E8106 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 A-LQmHuViC2R for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D9411E8105 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so9783550pbb.31 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=v+VVllwqps1cdONo46yvOeyXKJHyJ2VKuAK/F2/p2hE=; b=EnB/0a2AgHy/62NEQanGEM5P1AcRggOD7FHKa3t64P4VM5j2Fn/7Zvrvnp7jPGtJ8o xVZ81YEAh2Fm5XhUuZkIR84eLSgYE0bdeJcShtu3KDBdPBLuE98XU9w6v2qQkjX2V306 h6QgMCtgErW/szRj6XoFZhREcIZJH95MQOJcVnlNBJrZKCbPc5a0lno1hNJHHdAWddMO prIxAVGOnnfTZYMAIo5KYWKFkdLhUN2NwBn0q/k+2yviHjPA2U53uIbUKGPsmI+PLvkO JdirApp5vrPdzA1ls2uwUup9GzDkKB7jszpPs1ZCqOmuCvOW2SBGY30Ui+qFbEpCaMwZ JLjg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.87.227 with SMTP id bb3mr40270779pab.3.1346182256805; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.223.199 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <CAHF4apOuz3rfZ1_FLAcLAX9smGB=HbfSMPiz32zFaj+s9ALHfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:00:56 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHF4apNCwOC9Vwz5Eb2zpTNJPiu1wMiMYnojv_wtevoqLh7pLA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03
From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami <balajivenkat299@gmail.com>
To: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <eosborne@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d042ef46538494304c8587b55"
Cc: Shankar Raman M J <mjsraman@gmail.com>, "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: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:30:58 -0000

Dear Eric,

Forgot to answer question number one.

As far as operator support is concerned we will be familiarizing this as we
go along with the major ISPs and seeking their opinion.

Some informal conversations have shown the power reduction techniques are
necessary more than ever.

At this stage we are not even asking for standardization but just to convey
the fact that we did some simulations and the work was a result of these
experiments. The conference calls that we had with some providers with huge
opex costs with respect to power especially core routers of the kind that
are deployed today helped us gather more material from this research-y yet
technically feasible solution.

The mechanism proposed is primarily a PCE like architecture that constructs
the graph with weighted edges as consumed power to available bandwidth
ratios and which runs CSPF to do its job as proposed.

Hope this clarifies.

thanks and regards,
balaji venkat

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) <eosborne@cisco.com
> wrote:

> Some comments:
>
> 1)  This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as your
> Acknowledgements indicate.  This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in the
> IETF as the IETF is not a research journal.  To move towards
> standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stating that
> the problem you solve is  a real problem for them, and that your solution
> is both effective and deployable in practice.  Note that this support has
> more heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research
> department.  Do you have such support?
>
> 2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation between ASes,
> including inter-AS TE LSPs.  You may want to investigate the operational
> feasibility of this cooperation.
>
>
>
>
>
> eric
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM
> > To: rtgwg@ietf.org
> > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina
> > Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the
> > following draft.
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03
> >
> > Please feel free to comment on the same.
> >
> > thanks and regards,
> > balaji venkat
>