In message <cahf4apogl40a3owkjznvoafn7u6cl06vt0ru8vruniwpuh9...@mail.gmail.com> Balaji venkat Venkataswami writes: > Dear Eric, > > Please take a look at the tcam-efficiency draft that we have published. > > The URL to the draft is > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-panet-tcam-power-efficiency-00 > > A follow up draft that defines TCAM efficiency in terms of a metric is > also outlined in... > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-panet-tcam-power-ratio-02 > > With the help of the above schemes and additional work that is in > progress we intend to reduce the power footprint of a > device/router/switch/chassis such that important power guzzling > components of the router are optimized. > > In summary, the above 2 drafts coupled with the protocol schemes will > we feel result in better power saving than what we have today. So > essentially optimizing the power consumed within a device coupled with > using protocol schemes between devices will result in saving power. > > Hope this helps. > > thanks and regards, > balaji venkat
balaji, This is in the realm of router design. You are suggesting a TCAM in which banks can be shut off by reducing the number of destination addresses in the FIB. A better solution to reduce the power consumed by TCAM is don't use a TCAM. It is fast, but a radix trie based approach or other tree approach consumes less power and pipelining makes such an approach feasible if the lookup memory can be kept on-chip. MPLS lookup can be easily done in on chip SRAM rather than TCAM consuming mush less power than an on-chip TCAM and a fraction of the power of off chip TCAM due to the SERDES power needed to go off chip. This pair of drafts in particular should be dropped. Curtis > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > [size trimmed] > > > > OK, so you want to avoid nodes which draw more power. > > Are you assuming that minimizing the traffic across a node also minimizes > > the power that node draws? > > > > If yes: > > - please provide concrete examples of how this actually works. In my > > experience the power draw by a router or switch is pretty constant, more > > driven by the *existence* of links (because links -> linecards -> power > > draw) than by the *traffic* on those links. > > > > If not, what do you hope to accomplish by avoiding higher-power nodes? > > > > > > > > > > eric > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:59 AM > > > To: Eric Osborne (eosborne) > > > Cc: Shankar Raman; [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing > > > community > > > > > > Dear Eric, > > > > > > We seem to be discussing at cross purposes. > > > > > > The root of our position is not what you have stated. We do not say if > > you dont > > > use a link you consume less power. We are not for avoiding links but we > > are for > > > avoiding nodes/routers/switches which have a large power footprint. The > > > essence of using link metrics is to avoid nodes with larger power > > footprints. > > > That is how SPF or CSPF works. When it computes a low power path it > > avoids > > > nodes and also links that lead to that node which has a larger power > > footprint. > > > So the premise that we are just avoiding links is WRONG. > > > > > > For #1 question, we dont even talk about the power the link draws. We > > talk > > > about the power footprint of the node that it is connected to. > > > > > > For #2 question, again we state that your premise of avoiding links in > > your > > > example is a non-starter for us. > > > > > > thanks and regards, > > > balaji venkat _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
