Agree on the suggestion. However, the text to be considered as following: Load distribution constraint MAY be used during sustained low traffic periods to reduce the number of active component links for the purpose of power reduction.
Lucy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Curtis Villamizar Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:57 PM To: Iftekhar Hussain Cc: [email protected] Subject: change to requirements (was Re: draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework) All, Note the change in subject line. In the discussion of the CL framework, a suggestion was made to change the requirements. Please comment on this suggestion. The following would be added somewhere. Load balancing MAY be used during sustained low traffic periods to reduce the number of active component links for the purpose of power reduction. I think the wording in the framework originally came from either Lucy or Verizon (maybe Ning or Dave?). Iftekhar is correct that it would be best to mention this in the requirements if we are going to mention it in the framework. Curtis btw- In each of these document we need to change Ning's affiliation. In message <d7d7ab44c06a2440b716f1f1f5e70ae534645...@sv-exdb-prod2.infinera.com> Iftekhar Hussain writes: > > > > > > > Please find below some comments on the > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-05. > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > > > 2.1. Flow Identification > > > > > > "Operator may have other objectives such as ...composite link energy > > > saving, and etc. These new requirements are described in > > > [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]" > > > > > > Comment: > > > > > > I don't recall any energy saving related requirement (or discussion) > > > in the [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement. Suggest removing the text > > > "energy saving etc." > > > > You are entirely correct that there are no energy savings mentioned in > > the requirements document. This wording came from one of the other > > authors but I think I understand the intent. There is a daily cycle > > (and less so a weekly cycle) to traffic levels. During the low > > traffic hours (generally late at night for local hours of night) > > traffic can be rebalanced to reduce the number of active component > > links. Where it is possible to depower interfaces, this could result > > in energy savings. > > > > I'm OK with removing this example, though it is a very good example > > and an goal that we should be pursuing. Another option is to add a > > "MAY" in the requirements docuemt somewhere that indicates that "Load > > balancing MAY be used during sustained low traffic periods to reduce > > the number of active component links for the purpose of power > > reduction". > > > [Iftekhar] OK. The latter option seems reasonable. > > > > I'll wait for further comments on this before making a suggestion on > > how we will proceed. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
