Dear Eric, You had written...
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? <balajivenkat> Our answer to the above question is this. We are rephrasing the question as "Can you send more traffic through low power consuming nodes ?". Therefore If yes does not come into the picture. The end objective slowly the traffic will migrate to the low power nodes and the high power consuming nodes can be dismantled. The other mail for TCAM that I had sent will deal with answer to your problem. thanks and regards, balaji venkat On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
