http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7162572.PN.&OS=PN/7162572&RS=PN/7162572
Irrespectively Yours, John From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:22 AM To: Eric Osborne (eosborne) Cc: Shankar Raman; [email protected] Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing community 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:59 AM > To: Eric Osborne (eosborne) > Cc: Shankar Raman; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[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
