In message <[email protected]>
Tony Li writes:
>
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The question is really not whether in theory a routing or TE based
> > approach can make gains in a hypothetic network, it is whether it is
> > worthwhile approach given how networks are actually built and where
> > the power actually goes. This is assuming a solution before
> > understanding the problem, and IMHO it is starting off with a poor
> > solution.
>
>
> Curtis,
>
> As you and I both know, there is a huge diurnal cycle to traffic, plus
> macro cycles at the weekly period. Even with local power optimization
> in place, our experience with traffic engineering alone suggests that
> there are further, global optimizations that are possible.
>
> Again, I think that constraining our thinking to what is 'worthwhile'
> today, at current power rates is shortsighted. We need to understand
> what can be done, what the returns are, and only then, let various
> operators judge as to whether it is of commercial interest to them or
> not.
>
> Tony
Tony,
I agree with that you said.
What I was trying to get at was:
1. The discussion should be based on realistic assumptions.
Discussions not based on realistic assumptions often turn out to
be a waste of time.
2. The solution space should be within the range of deployable
options.
Discussions on many topics in the research world too often fails to
adhere to these. The IRTF Routing Requirements WG is a good example,
with the occasional proposals to completely replace routing with pet
ideas and inability to stick to the deployable solution space.
Curtis
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
