Hi Tony, Hope you’re doing well. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Please excuse my delayed reply, as we are currently celebrating the Chinese New Year holiday.
According to existing carbon accounting standards such as the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064/14067, when Company A evaluates the carbon emissions of leased operator dedicated lines, it typically relies on emission factors provided by communication service providers or industry databases. At present, operators usually disclose such emission factors through their ESG reports. While this approach is efficient, it is not sufficiently precise. We would like to propose a method that can assess the carbon emission level of a specific transmission path, as an alternative to the current enterprise dedicated line carbon emission evaluation approach. This method does not modify the existing SR network or PCE path computation behavior; it only calculates and returns the carbon emissions for each candidate path after the paths have been computed. For this draft, the items to be standardized include the required parameters and calculation method for carbon emission evaluation of a specific SR path. Regarding the comparison between a 1000-hop path with 95% energy efficiency and a 1-hop path with 90% energy efficiency: from a purely carbon emission perspective, a 1000-hop path using 100% green electricity is indeed better than a 1-hop path powered by 100% fossil fuels. Of course, such extreme cases are not realistic in practice. Looking forward to your feedback. Best regards, Jinming Li > 2026年2月15日 01:59，Tony Li <[email protected]> 写道： > > > Hi all, > > I would like to thank the authors for this work. I have several comments. > > First off, this draft does NOT seem to be SR specific. In fact, it would very > much seem to be independent of the forwarding plane and thus could be > generalized, resulting in a stronger contribution. This architecture need not > be controller specific. This would apply equally to a PCE. > > Since this is really not SR specific, that strongly suggests that it actually > belongs in TEAS, not in SPRING. > > Energy efficiency is not necessarily the only metric to be considered when > performing a path computation. You can easily imagine a 1000 hop path where > each hop is 95% efficient. Is that better than a single hop that is 90% > efficient? Now, you’re probably thinking: how is this relevant, the details > of the path computation are centralized, so does it need to be standardized? > No, it does not. > > And that leads me to my final question: what problem are we solving here? > > Regards, > Tony > > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
