I think there is no question that power consumption issues are relevant to
routing decisions. What is not clear is what strategies will be seen as useful
to deploy.
The draft proposes extensions to IGPs to send power related information.
This will significantly increase the amount of information advertised by the
IGPs and require every IGP enabled node in the network to store and flood this
additional information. This information is of no direct value to the operation
of the protocol. It is used - in ways not yet fully specified - by a small
number of nodes and/or controllers to determine when to signal given power
groups to be shut down or powered up.
Justification of this additional load on the protocols requires further
discussion. In particular, is the strategy proposed by the draft (powering
"power groups" on/off based on some heuristics) a strategy which is seen as a
desirable solution by network operators.
I think before the WG begins serious work on this proposal we should have an
indication that network operators see this as a solution they want to deploy.
To date, I have not seen any input from network operators.
Coordinating/being consistent with the work in the Green WG is certainly a
desirable goal - but I think the more important consideration at this time is
whether the work is seen as a desirable solution by network operators.
I appreciate that the draft authors are enthused and have empirical evidence of
the potential value their solution offers - but this is not the same as having
input from network operators. All protocol vendors (myself included) think we
have the best solution. :-)
My $.02.
Les
From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:05 PM
To: lsr <[email protected]>
Cc: “[email protected]” <[email protected]>; ops-ads <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: [Lsr] Next steps for draft-many-lsr-power-group-02
Hi lsr-wg, green-wg, et al.,
The authors of draft-many-lsr-power-group-02
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-lsr-power-group/) have requested
early code-point allocation. As this is normally done after WG adoption we
would like to move forward on that front first.
The GREEN wg chairs have expressed interest in this draft as far as not wanting
to be developing at cross-purposes with the work from GREEN.
A proposed way forward that came from discussions between the LSR and GREEN
chairs and ADs would be for LSR to adopt this document as experimental and move
it forward with the addition of some text. The text would state that work is on
going in the IETF to define a broad power framework and that future solutions
may be proposed to incorporate this work.
Additionally, GREEN is asking the authors to review the green framework draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bcmj-green-power-and-energy-yang/) and
attempt to align where possible, and avoid incompatabilty if possible (e.g.,
consider terminology and hierarchy where different).
If the work is adopted then LSR would request constructive review and feedback
from GREEN for any changes that can be made to improve the LSR work with the
goal of moving the work forward.
The LSR chairs and ADs believe the intention of the authors is to get solution
quickly deployed to start making immediate progress on power saving. The
interest from GREEN WG is that if we do this we indicate it’s an experimental
approach and we make an effort to allow for later solutions that would
incorporate the more comprehensive framework that they are working on.
Additionally, it has been pointed out that GREEN WG should be able to benefit
from the real-world experience gained from deployments of the experiment LSR
RFC.
This email services as an opportunity to raise concerns with this plan to move
forward.
Thanks, Lsr Chairs.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
