In message <[email protected]> Kireeti Kompella writes: > On May 24, 2012, at 11:40 , Lucy yong wrote: > > > 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. > > I'd phrase that as "Constrained load balancing MAY ...". I prefer > balancing to distribution.
Duh. Yeah. Not sure how I managed to mangle the wording so badly and not notice it so far. I think this is best: Load distribution MAY be used during sustained low traffic periods to reduce the number of active component links for the purpose of power reduction. The word "constraint" is dropped. > In any case, you'd want to add something to the effect that "normal" > load distribution SHOULD be resumed when traffic increases, with flows > being affected (again). > > Kireeti. I see your point except that I don't see this as quite a big a deviation from "normal" load balancing. For example, if there are N components, then one could configure the CL to shut off a component if a condition is met. One such condition would be the utilization of the composite would remain under some configured percentage if traffic remained at the same levels as was recorded over a prior interval. For example, if M components remain (where 1 < M <= N) and traffic was measured in 100 msec intervals for 20 minutes with no interval exceeding a level where M-1 components would be loaded over 80%, then the number of components is reduced by one and measurement starts over. If the composite is ever loaded over 80%, then a component is added back. That was just an example. The requirements would just indicate that some unspecified technique MAY be used to address the requirement. The framework might put a few more constraints on the technique, but only if we think that would be needed. Since coordination on both sides would be needed to power down components, a protocol extension would be needed ... eventually, if we could ever get past requirements and framework. A bit like LACP only not for Ethernet component links only, or like Avici Composite Link (abandonned trademark) only not just for component links using PPP (like POS). Curtis _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
