Hi Robert,
> Hmm so you are saying that you are proposing power optimisation architecture > without central controller which will have a global view of all demands in > the network and will reduce the paths of the packets ? No, there is no global view of all demands. We are working towards a distributed solution. I don’t understand what you mean by “reduce the paths of the packets”. The point is to consolidate traffic as much as possible with an eye towards taking all traffic off of an interface and then putting the interface into power sleep. Further, if traffic can be sufficiently consolidated, NPUs and line cards can be put into power sleep. This results in a significant power savings. > I am not seeing how can you do that safely with fully distributed and > independent CSPF running on each ingress only knowing his view of the > network. As always, this is done with an understanding of the approximate current loading of the network, with path setup done in a make-before-break fashion. The only thing that changes over conventional traffic engineering is that path computation also considers power consumption. > Moreover as traffic is often bi-directional doing this independently in both > directions makes it even more fun to watch. Indeed. > And sure I am personally not a big fan of controllers too, but when it comes > to global view of the network I have not seen an alternative for any type of > optimization. I will be the first to admit that a true global view is necessary to get to optimal. However, if you’re willing to settle for Super Good Enough (TM Ryan Jenks), we believe that you can get a near-optimal solution with a distributed approach. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
