Subject: [bmwg] Checking for Overlap with a BMWG work Proposal

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:46:28 -0500

Hi Benoit and Bruce,

During our Benchmarking Methodology WG session, we agreed to check
with you in your capacity as EMAN co-chairs, and draw on
your experience with recent developments in the power industry.

We have a proposal in our working group:

Power usage while Networking
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-bmwg-power-usage-01
    Comments that the spec is similar to the TEEER spec and author
    has checked - found that this draft is more complete/detailed.

For a quick view, the slides from the topic are here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/bmwg-3.ppt

Please let us know of any related or overlapping work either of
you know about.

thanks and regards,
Al
bmwg chair

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:00:07 -0800

Hi Benoit/ Bruce,

Good to hear there is a group working on similar things. After reading
the mail archives, I noticed that I had socialized the draft with some
of the folks in that working group earlier - mainly working on MIB's.

Based on comments from some folks from Cisco and others, we did have a
look at the TEEER proposal from Verizon, which according to the author
is still getting socialized and refined and is meant for Verizon
internal purpose. He was ok for me to use part of the proposal for my
draft.

The main differences are we have 2 metrics defined, instead of one by
TEEER, besides TEEER looks at loads - 0%, 50% and 100%. The final
metric in both cases is slightly different, besides Verizon specifies
the range of metric acceptable for their network. Measurements using
similar metrics have been done on a range of devices by the folks I
have collaborated with for the draft.

The draft is in initial phase and I would love to get feedback on the
draft from you folks.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Al Morton <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>

---

From: Bruce Nordman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:15:07 -0800

Al, Vishwas--

  I am not sure that there is overlap directly between this and the
eman charter, but there is definitely overlap with LBNL's interest
in network equipment energy use.  I need to review the I-D and
slides, but we are familiar with the ATIS approach and while
many aspects of it are good, we do have trouble with computing
a performance ratio after measuring power and performance.
  Energy Star (who LBNL does work for) is presently creating a
labeling specification for Small Network Equipment, and we have
a draft test procedure.  Small is likely to be <9 wired ports and all
wireless.  Energy Star is scheduled to take up Large Network
Equipment next calendar year.
  In any case, thank you very much for the outreach and information
as I was not aware of the BMWG's interest/effort in this area.
  Cheers,
--Bruce

-- 
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
eetd.lbl.gov/ea/nordman
[email-masked]
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:36:15 -0500

Hi Bruce, thanks for your reply.

A question on:
>...but there is definitely overlap with LBNL's interest

Could you provide a reference for the ATIS approach?

Also, let me note that BMWG's work specifically avoids setting
pass/fail or acceptance criteria, which I suppose Energy Star
and others must do. But others might set thresholds based our
benchmarks, that's beyond our scope.

Al
bmwg chair