| Hello everyone,
I just discovered that this IETF thread was mentioning a paper of mine from a few years ago, whose official reference is here:
As usual, also for the mentioned GOSPF proposal we made running code available for people who wanted to play with it ( https://wpage.unina.it/spromano/gospf/). It was based on the beautiful Quagga suite and I am afraid it would need some tweaking in order to work with the current releases of the software.
Also note that the coauthor of this paper is Professor Simon Pietro Romano who is the cofounder of Meetecho. He acively participates in IETF standardization activities.
I can proudly confirm that! Even though I have to admit I have not always been so lucky with my proposals. Recently I struggled a lot, e.g., with a proposal for multipath in QUIC, which was strongly bounced back by the community (this was a couple of years before multipath QUIC became latest fashion at the IETF, unfortunately). This just to tell you, Hesham, that I often work as a good "counter-example” IETF-wise :-))
Cheers,
Simon
_\\|//_ ( O-O ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Pietro Romano Universita' di Napoli Federico II Computer Engineering Department Phone: +39 081 7683823 e-mail: spromano@xxxxxxxx <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte. oooO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~( )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ ( ( ) \_) ) / (_/
Thank Joel! The approach used by this paper is an engineering approach. The paper says " The al-gorithm we devised represents our engineering approach to the solution of the well known (though still open) issue of dynamic network topology adaptation to improve energy efficiency."
Also note that the coauthor of this paper is Professor Simon Pietro Romano who is the cofounder of Meetecho. He acively participates in IETF standardization activities.
I think IETF has very smart people; some has relevant skill set, knowledge and expertise to look at infrastructure energy efficiency problems.
As you mentioned, the issue is to find a problem that needs to be solved and the solution should be standardized for customers to deploy it. We can argue whether the solution described in this paper for the well-known infrastructure energy and QoS management problem should be standardized or not. But if it needs to be standardized, I think IETF already has and can bring in the right experts to do the standardization work.
I think Jari's workshop on energy management is a good start to brainstorm what IETF can do to address energy management problems in IP networks. Jari also mentioned during IETF 114 NMRG meeting that IETF should work on energy management.
Thanks Hesham
As a research paper, I can not argue with that. But as an
engineering paper, trying to adjust routing based on instantaneous
load is a known non-starter. But that is what the paper says it
does. Which strongly suggests that this problem space is still
not ready for engineering. (I am reminded of the wonderfully
elegant work on compact routing which could have reduced our
routing table size. If only the topology would stay put. But it
doesn't.)
I am not saying folks shouldn't do research. they should.
Whether such research is even ready for the IRTF is a different
question I leave to researchers and the IRSG. Whether we even
know what questions to be asking to try to improve the situation
in ways that are relevant to the IETF is also a reasonable
question. But not one for engineering. If the IAB thinks it can
get a good discussion among people at different layers of protocol
design and people who actually deal with energy and resource
tradeoffs, ,to start working on finding the right questions is up
to them.
Yours, Joel
On 8/6/2022 1:51 AM, Hesham ElBakoury
wrote:
Hi Joel,
Why IETF does not have the skill set to define
extensions to OSPF to be more energy efficient ? Example of
such extensions is described in this recent paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.00035.
Thanks
Hesham
I can't speak for Fred, but I don't think we as a
community even know what "energy efficient protocol"
means. Much less how that trades off against all the
other aspects of protocol design. We do consider message size and frequency when we design
protocols. We consider those aspects along with lots of
others. if that is "designing energy efficient protocols"
then we already do so. On the other hand, design for
issues such as to to partially wake up a sleeping device
is generally outside our remit and skill set. And is
meaningless for many of our devices. Yours, Joel
On 8/5/2022 7:18 PM, Hesham ElBakoury wrote:
Hi Fred,
Do you think IETF engineers have the
skill sets to design energy efficient protocols or
enhance existing ones to be more energy efficient ?
Echoing
a previous post, I’m not sure sustainability is part
of our skill set. If we were to try to forcibly add
it, I suspect we’d get the same level of response
security originally got: “sustainability is not
specified in this document”.
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting
ways...
> On Aug 5, 2022, at 2:26 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps it is time for a new mandatory section in
RFCs: sustainability?
|
