My preference is to add this requirement in the req. draft and add the warning in the framework draft when describing load balancing. Load balancing algorithm needs consider minimum impact when lost a component link or component link addition. This can happen when a component link fails or adding a new component link. This is not just for shutting off component link for energy saving.
Lucy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Curtis Villamizar Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33 PM To: Kireeti Kompella Cc: [email protected]; Iftekhar Hussain 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 _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
