Hi Robert, > > If an interface is not power sleep capable, then its PSP is not relevant in > > metric computation. > > Why would you say so ?
That’s the semantics that we’re proposing. > I can see some links (or even entire parts of topologies) > which do not have any power saving potential configured but they could be > used just fine for taking some traffic from links designated for sleeping > under lower load. Sorry, I’m not following you. If a link is not power sleep capable, then it cannot be put to sleep or the network operator does not want it put to sleep. The PSP is not used in the path metric computation, so the link becomes a (relative) traffic attractor, drawing traffic away from power sleep capable links. > If you assume that only links participating in power savings should be part > of it I think this is significantly problematic. Operators are very clear: they need a minimum resilient topology that ensures that they have a redundant network at all times. There are links that must not be put to sleep. This seems quite sensible. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
