Curtis, I also think, it would be a good idea to indicate the consequences of such load balancing change (if this event is going to cause service disruption). FR#4 and FR#12 might be relevant.
Regards, Iftekhar -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 2:33 PM To: Kireeti Kompella Cc: [email protected]; Iftekhar Hussain; [email protected] Subject: Re: change to requirements (was Re: draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework) In message <[email protected]> Kireeti Kompella writes: > On May 24, 2012, at 10:56 , Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > > 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. > > Is the intent: > > Load balancing MAY be _changed_ during sustained low traffic > periods to reduce the number of active component links ... > > ? > > If so, a warning ("this may result in some packets being reordered, > and a change in delay and jitter of some flows") should probably be > added. > > Kireeti. Kireeti, You are correct that any change would be minimally disruptive. In the example I gave there could be no more than one change in 20 minutes, but still more than zero. I personally don't think a warning is needed here, but if you and/or others feel it is needed I have no objections to adding it. The text would then be: [FR#N] Load balancing MAY be used during sustained low traffic periods to reduce the number of active component links for the purpose of power reduction. As with any load balancing change, a change initiated for the purpose of power reduction may be minimally disruptive. Typically the disruption is limited to a change in delay characteristics and the potential for a very brief period with traffic reordering. The network operator when configuring a network for power reduction should weight the benefit of power reduction against the disadvantage of a minimal disruption. The first paragraph is a requirement. The second paragraph is discussion and should not appear within a numbered list of requirements. I would like comments from you and others. Do we need to add this requirement? If so do we need to add this warning? Curtis _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
