Dear Eric, Please take a look at the tcam-efficiency draft that we have published.
The URL to the draft is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-panet-tcam-power-efficiency-00 A follow up draft that defines TCAM efficiency in terms of a metric is also outlined in... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-panet-tcam-power-ratio-02 With the help of the above schemes and additional work that is in progress we intend to reduce the power footprint of a device/router/switch/chassis such that important power guzzling components of the router are optimized. In summary, the above 2 drafts coupled with the protocol schemes will we feel result in better power saving than what we have today. So essentially optimizing the power consumed within a device coupled with using protocol schemes between devices will result in saving power. Hope this helps. thanks and regards, balaji venkat On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) <[email protected]>wrote: > [size trimmed] > > OK, so you want to avoid nodes which draw more power. > Are you assuming that minimizing the traffic across a node also minimizes > the power that node draws? > > If yes: > - please provide concrete examples of how this actually works. In my > experience the power draw by a router or switch is pretty constant, more > driven by the *existence* of links (because links -> linecards -> power > draw) than by the *traffic* on those links. > > If not, what do you hope to accomplish by avoiding higher-power nodes? > > > > > eric > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:59 AM > > To: Eric Osborne (eosborne) > > Cc: Shankar Raman; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing > > community > > > > Dear Eric, > > > > We seem to be discussing at cross purposes. > > > > The root of our position is not what you have stated. We do not say if > you dont > > use a link you consume less power. We are not for avoiding links but we > are for > > avoiding nodes/routers/switches which have a large power footprint. The > > essence of using link metrics is to avoid nodes with larger power > footprints. > > That is how SPF or CSPF works. When it computes a low power path it > avoids > > nodes and also links that lead to that node which has a larger power > footprint. > > So the premise that we are just avoiding links is WRONG. > > > > For #1 question, we dont even talk about the power the link draws. We > talk > > about the power footprint of the node that it is connected to. > > > > For #2 question, again we state that your premise of avoiding links in > your > > example is a non-starter for us. > > > > thanks and regards, > > balaji venkat > > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
