Internet DRAFT - draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp
draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp
Routing Area Working Group A. Retana
Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Intended status: Informational R. White
Expires: 25 February 2024 Akamai Technologies
M. Paul
Deutsche Telekom AG
24 August 2023
A Framework for Energy Aware Control Planes
draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-07
Abstract
Energy is a primary constraint in large-scale network design,
particularly in cloud-scale data center fabrics. While compute and
storage clearly consume the largest amounts of energy in large-scale
networks, the optics and electronics used in transporting data also
contribute to energy usage and heat generation.
This document provides an overview of various areas of concern in the
interaction between network performance and efforts at energy aware
control planes, as a guide for those working on modifying current
control planes or designing new ones to improve the energy efficiency
of high density, highly complex, network deployments.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 February 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Business Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Application Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Example Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Modes of Reducing Energy Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Global Versus Local Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Energy Efficiency and Bandwidth Reduction . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Energy Efficiency and Stretch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Energy Efficiency and Fast Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Energy Efficiency and Microsleeps . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Other Operational Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The availability of low-cost energy sources, provisioning energy
sources, and handling the heat generation from processing and
transporting data are determining factors in the siting, development,
and operation of large-scale data centers. The rise of edge
computing, 5G, and diversified compute is causing the importance of
understanding and reducing energy usage in networks to become
increasingly important.
As with all network and protocol design, however, reducing energy use
represents a tradeoff. In the case of networks, increasing energy
efficiency can result in a loss of optimization in network operations
in other areas. These kinds of tradeoffs can be described in terms
of the state/optimization/surface triad; increasing local
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
optimization in one area, energy consumption, can result in global
sub-optimization through increased state, more complex interaction
surfaces, or even suboptimal global energy usage.
This document provides background information and a framework for
understanding the tradeoffs between modifications made to network
control plane protocols to conserve energy and network performance.
This document also makes suggestions to designers and implementers of
modifications intended to enable energy conservation in networks.
The intent of this document is to encourage work in the area of
reducing network energy usage through protocol design, network
design, and network operations.
The document is organized as follows. Section 2 provides material
the reader needs to understand to appreciate the challenges inherent
in balancing energy reduction with effective network performance.
This section includes subsections considering the application and
business requirements that are the basis of the reset of the
document. Section 3 provides a framework for understanding common
mechanisms in energy management schemes. Section 4 provides an
analysis of the areas highlighted, including an explanation of how
the specific area interacts with energy management, an example of the
interaction, and, finally, a set of considerations for protocol
designers when proposing either new protocols or modifications to
existing protocols to reduce energy usage.
2. Background
This section describes the underlying business and application
drivers for the considerations sections.
2.1. Scope
Radio based networks designed for rapid deployment for highly mobile
users (often called Mobile Ad Hoc Networks [RFC2501]), and sensor
networks designed using devices with limited power, memory, and
processing resources [RFC7102], are not the target of this document.
Readers should refer to the groups working within those areas for
energy management requirements based on those specialized
environments. While protocol developers for those environments may
draw useful information from this document, this work is not intended
to address those specialized networks specifically. Mobile cellular
networks however are similarly affected by excess energy consumption
as wireline networks and seek to save energy by methods such as the
ones described in [SDO-3GPP.25.927].
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
Inter-domain applications require more work in policy than in
technical and business considerations, and therefore fall outside the
scope of this document. Intra-domain control planes are
(intuitively) where most energy savings will be attained, at any
rate. Most high concentrations of routers, such as data centers and
campus networks, are under a single administrative domain.
Therefore, placing inter-domain control planes outside the scope of
this document does not limit its usefulness in any meaningful way.
Energy monitoring deals with the collection of information related to
energy utilization and its characteristics, and energy control
relates to directly influencing the optimization and/or efficiency of
devices in the network [RFC7326]. The focus of this document is on
understanding the tradeoffs between modifications made to network
protocols to conserve energy and network performance metrics, rather
than functions, steps or procedures required for energy monitoring or
control.
2.2. Business Drivers
Networks are driven by organizational, application specific, and
general connectivity requirements. Organizational requirements
include capital and operational expense, and the restrictions the
network architecture places on the growth and operation of the
organization. The interaction between the network and organization
is managed through change management, availability, and network
agility (the ability to quickly support or shed application demands
on the network).
Modifying control planes to support energy awareness impacts capital
and operational expenses primarily through tradeoffs against
availability, and potentially through network agility.
2.3. Application Drivers
Applications drivers provide the background for each of the technical
sections below. While network operators and protocol designers need
to pay attention to a wide array of factors when considering how best
to support specific applications, this document focuses on factors
with broad impact. The first two questions involve bandwidth: how
much bandwidth will the application consume, and is this bandwidth
consumption fairly steady, or highly variable? For instance,
applications such as streaming video tend to have long lasting flows
with high bandwidth requirements, file transfers tend to produce
shorter flows requiring high bandwidth, and HTML traffic tends to be
bursty, with much lower bandwidth requirements.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
The next question a protocol or network designer might ask about a
specific application is its tolerance to jitter. Real time
applications, such as voice and video conferencing, have a very low
toleration for jitter. File transfers and streaming video, on the
other hand, can often handle large variations in packet arrival
times. If packets are delayed long enough, the application may
actually time out, shutting down sessions. Users will often "hang
up" after a short period of time, as well, causing loss of revenue
and productivity.
Delay is another crucial factor in the performance of many
applications. Many server virtualization protocols, for instance,
have very low tolerance for delay, having been written with
connectivity through a short wire local broadcast segment in mind.
Applications such as stock and commodity trading, remote medical, and
collaborative video editing also exhibit very little tolerance for
delay. Applications built on a microservices model will often
exhibit deep performance loss when running over a network with high
or variable delay.
Variable delay, or jitter, is another factor which broadly impacts
application performance. Networks with high jitter require longer
flow and error control timeouts, reducing application performance.
Control plane convergence events can cause jitter in traffic flows
through the network. Changing the number of hops through the network
(an increase or reduction in stretch) will cause the delay through
the network to vary, which is perceived by the application as jitter.
The selection of a suboptimal route by the control plane, for
instance through the introduction of aggregation or summarization of
reachability information, or the selection of a more heavily loaded
link over a more likely loaded one, can increase the number of hops
traffic takes through the network, or select a path with more deeply
filled queues. Either of these can cause traffic to pass through the
network more slowly, which is perceived by the application as delay.
Jitter and delay can also be introduced directly into the packet
stream by reducing the throughput of individual links, or putting
devices and/or links into energy reduced modes for very short periods
of time (microsleeps). If a link is asleep when the first and third
packets from a flow arrive at the head end of the link, and not when
the second packet from that same flow arrives, each packet is going
to be processed differently, and hence will have a different delay
across the path.
The following sections address bandwidth reduction, increasing
stretch, network convergence, and introducing jitter through
microsleeps, in more detail.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
3. Framework
This section contains a sample network which is used throughout the
rest of this document, considers some ways in which energy usage can
be reduced, and provides some examples.
3.1. Example Network
To illustrate the impacts of link and device removal throughout the
rest of this document, the following network is used.
/--R2--R6--\ /---\
R1 R4 R5
\----R3----/ \---/
This network is overly simplistic so the impact of removing various
links and devices from the topology can be more clearly illustrated.
More complex topologies will often exhibit these same effects in less
obvious, and harder to understand, ways.
3.2. Modes of Reducing Energy Usage
There are four primary ways in which energy usage can be reduced:
* Removing redundant links from the network topology; for instance,
one of the two parallel links between R4 and R5 may be removed
* Removing redundant network equipment from the network topology;
for instance, R2 and R6, along with their associated links, may be
removed
* Reducing the amount of time equipment or links are operational;
for instance, one of the two parallel links between R4 and R5 may
be shut down during time periods when the traffic flow through the
network is not large enough to justify operating both links
* Reducing the link speed or processing rate of equipment; for
instance, the speed of the two links between R4 and R5 may be
reduced during time periods when the traffic through the network
is not large enough to justify making some higher amount of
bandwidth available
Completely removing nodes or links from the network topology has
several impacts on the control plane which must be considered. In
these cases, the control plane must:
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
* Modify the network topology so removed links or devices are not
used to forward traffic
* Remember that such links exist, possibly including the neighbors
and destinations reachable through them
3.3. Global Versus Local Decisions
It is often tempting to optimize for local conditions while ignoring
system-level results, or to optimize system-level conditions while
ignoring local results. Both of these, however, are often a mistake.
The former extreme might be illustrated in a system where two nodes
measure local link utilization, shutting down any interconnecting
links when the utilization percentage drops below a certain level.
In such a system, pairs of adjacent devices may decide to shut down a
set of links which leaves no available path (or insufficient
bandwidth) through the network as a system. An example of the latter
might be a system where every node in the network must agree to shut
down a link before the link can be disabled for energy conservation.
In this case, a false perception of overall system health caused by
timing issues could cause a lack of local optimizations to take
place.
There are some considerations and tradeoffs which need to be outlined
in considering the global versus local decisions in relation to
energy efficiency. System designers should take note of the
difficulties with preventing pathological conditions when purely
localized decisions are made. For instance, in the example network,
assume R1 determines to put the R1->R2 link into an energy saving
mode, while R4 determines to put the R4->R3 link into an energy
saving mode. In this case, no path will remain available through the
network. It is also possible for the opposite to occur, that is for
no links or devices to be placed into a reduced energy state because
R1 and R4 don't agree through the control plane which links and
devices should be removed from the topology.
Protocol designers should consider these tradeoffs in proposals for
energy aware control planes.
4. Considerations
Each subsection considers a single energy saving mechanism in detail.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
4.1. Energy Efficiency and Bandwidth Reduction
Bandwidth is an important consideration in high density networks;
data center fabrics, for instance, are designed to provide a specific
amount of bandwidth, often with relatively fixed delay and jitter,
into and out of each server and to facilitate virtual server movement
among physical devices. In campus and core networks bandwidth is
finely coupled with quality of service guarantees for applications
and services. It should be obvious that removing links or devices
from a network topology will adversely affect the amount of available
bandwidth, which could, in turn, cause well thought out quality of
service mechanisms to degrade or fail.
What might not be so obvious is the relationship between available
bandwidth and jitter (or other network quality of service measures).
If higher speed links are removed from the topology in order to
continue using lower speed (and therefore presumably lower power)
links, then serialization delays will have a larger impact on traffic
flow. Longer serialization delays can cause input queues to back up,
which impacts not only delay but jitter, and possibly even traffic
delivery.
4.1.1. An Example of Lowering Bandwidth by Removing Parallel Links
In the network illustrated above, one of the two links between R4 and
R5 could be an obvious candidate for removal from the network,
especially if the network load can easily be transferred to the
remaining link without failure. There can be multiple negative
impacts from the perspective of optimal traffic flow, among which
could be the mixing of different kinds of flows with multiple quality
of service requirements.
If, for instance, a flow carrying voice data is mixed with a large
file transfer, the mixed queueing of traffic with two different
classes of service could cause variable delay (jitter), reducing
application performance.
4.1.2. Considerations
Modifications to control plane protocols to achieve network energy
efficiency should provide the ability to set the minimal bandwidth,
jitter, and delay through the network, and not shut down links or
devices that would violate those minimal requirements.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
4.2. Energy Efficiency and Stretch
In any given network, there is a shortest path between any source and
any destination. Network protocols discover these paths from the
destination's perspective --routing draws traffic along a path,
rather than driving along a path. Along with the shortest path,
there are a number of paths that can also carry traffic from a given
source to a given destination without the packets passing along the
same logical link, or through the same logical device, more than
once. These are considered loop-free alternate [RFC5714] paths.
The primary difference between the shortest path and the loop-free
alternate paths is the total cost of using the path. In simple
terms, this difference can be calculated as the number of links and
devices a packet must pass through when being carried from the source
to the destination, or the hop count. While most networks use much
more sophisticated metrics based on bandwidth, congestion, and other
factors, the hop count of the path a flow takes through the network
is a convenient measure of path efficiency.
When the control plane causes traffic to pass from the source to the
destination along a path which is longer than the shortest path, the
network is said to have stretch (see [Krioukov] for a more in depth
explanation of network stretch). To measure stretch, simply subtract
the metric of the shortest path from the metric of the longer path.
For example, in hop count terms, if the best path is three hops, and
the current path is four hops, the network exhibits a stretch of 1.
4.2.1. An Example of Stretch
In the network illustrated above, if a modification is made to the
control plane to remove the link between R1 and R3 in order to save
energy, all the destinations shown in the diagram remain reachable.
However, from the perspective of R1, the best path available to reach
R2 has increased in length by one hop. The original path is
R1->R3->R4->R5, the new path is R1->R2->R6->R4->R5. This represents
a stretch of 1.
Along with this increased stretch will most likely also come
increased delay through the network; each hop in the network
represents a measurable amount of delay. This increased stretch
might also represent an increased amount of jitter, as there are more
queues and more serialization events in the path of each packet
carried. There will also be the modifications in jitter as the
network switches between the optimal performance configuration and an
energy efficient configuration.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
4.2.2. Considerations
Designers who propose modifications to control plane protocols to
achieve network energy efficiency should analyze the impact of their
mechanisms on the stretch in typical network topologies, and should
include such analysis when explaining the applicability of their
proposals. This analysis may include an examination of the absolute,
or maximum, stretch caused by the modifications to the control plane
as well as analysis at the 95th percentile, the average stretch
increase in a given set of topologies, and/or the mean increase in
stretch.
Mechanisms that could impact the stretch of a network should provide
the ability for the network administrator to limit the amount of
stretch the network will encounter when moving into a more energy
efficient mode.
4.3. Energy Efficiency and Fast Recovery
A final area where modifications to the control plane for energy
efficiency is fast convergence or fast recovery. Many networks are
now designed to recover from failures quickly enough to only reult in
a handful of traffic lost; recovery on the order of half a second is
not an uncommon goal. It should be obvious that removing redundant
links and devices from the network to reduce energy consumption could
adversely affect these goals.
4.3.1. An Example of Impact on Fast Recovery
In the network shown, assume R2 and its associated links are shut
down in order to save energy. The result is a one-connected network
with no redundant link, impacting the resilience of the network to
node and link failures. It is possible to craft a mechanism that
will bring devices and links which have been powered down or taken
into a low-energy mode back into service, but these will necessarily
require some startup time, which will impact the Mean Time to Repair
(MTTR) enabled through the control plane. This impact will appear to
applications running over the network as extended jitter, and
potentially the loss of packets.
For these reasons, it may be that only links and devices which are a
"third point of failure" may be acceptable as removal candidates in
order to conserve energy.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
4.3.2. Considerations
Modifications to the control plane in order to remove links or nodes
to conserve energy should entail the ability to choose the level of
redundancy available after the network topology has been trimmed.
For instance, it might be acceptable in some situations to move to
single points of failure throughout the network, or in specific
sections of the network, for certain periods of time. In other
situations, it may only be acceptable to reduce the network to a
double point of failure, and never to a single point of failure.
4.4. Energy Efficiency and Microsleeps
Another mechanism to reduce energy usage in a network is to sleep
links or devices for very short periods of time, called microsleeps.
For instance, if a particular link is only used at 50% of the actual
available bandwidth, it should be possible to place the link in some
lower power state for 50% of the time, thus reducing energy usage by
some percentage. An example of one such mechanism is Energy-
Efficient Ethernet [IEEE_802.3az_2010].
Such schemes can introduce delay and jitter into the network path
directly; if a packet arrives while the link is in a reduced energy
state, it must wait until the link enters a normal operational mode
before it can be forwarded. Most of the time the proposed sleep
states are so small as to be presumably inconsequential on overall
packet delay, but multiple packets crossing a series of links, each
encountering different links in different states, could take very
different amounts of time to pass along the path.
One possible way to resolve this somewhat random accrual of delays on
a per packet basis is to coordinate these sleep states such that
packets accepted at the entry of the network are consistently passed
through the network when all links and devices are in a normal
operating mode, and simply delaying all packets at the entry point
into the network while the devices in the network are in an energy
reduced state. This solution still introduces some amount of jitter;
some packets will be delayed by the sleep state at the edge of the
network, while others will not. This solution also requires
coordinated timers at the speed of forwarding itself to effectively
control the sleep and wake cycles of the network.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
4.4.1. An Example of Microsleeps to Reduce Energy Usage
In the example network, assume the bandwidth utilization along the
path R1->R3->R4->R5 is 50% of the actual available bandwidth. It is
possible to consider a scheme where the R1->R3, R3->R4, and R4->R5
links are all put into an energy reduced operational mode 50% of the
time, since packets are only available to send 50% of the time. A
packet entering at R1 may encounter a short delay at the R1->R3,
R3->R4, and R4->R5 links, or it might not. Even if these delays are
small, say 200ms at each hop, the accumulated delay through the
network due to sleep states may be 0ms (all links and devices awake)
or 600ms (all links and devices asleep) as the packet passes through
the network.
As network paths lengthen to more realistic path lengths in real
deployments, the jitter introduced varies more widely, which could
cause problems for the operation of a number of applications.
4.4.2. Considerations
Protocol designers should analyze the impact of accumulated jitter
when proposing mechanisms that rely on microsleeps in either
equipment or links. This analysis should include both worst case and
best case scenarios, as well as an analysis of how coordinated clocks
are to be handled in the case of coordinated sleep states.
4.5. Other Operational Aspects
Modification of the network topology in order to save energy needs to
consider the operational needs of the network as well as application
requirements. Change management, operational downtime, and business
usage of the network need to be considered when determining which
links and nodes should be placed into a low energy state. Energy
provisions have to be assigned and changed for nodes and links,
optimally according to network usage profiles over the time of day.
Control plane protocol operation, in terms of operational efficiency
on the wire, also needs to be considered when modifying protocol
parameters. Any changes that negatively impact the operation of the
protocol, in terms of the amount of traffic, the size of routing
information transmitted over the network, and interaction with
network management operations need to be carefully analyzed for
scaling and operational implications.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
4.5.1. An Example of Operational Impact
Time of day is an important consideration in business operations.
During normal operational hours, the network needs to be fully
available, including all available redundancy and bandwidth. During
holidays, night hours, and other times when a campus might not be
used, or when there are lower traffic and resiliency demands on the
network, network elements can be removed to reduce energy usage.
4.5.2. Considerations
Protocol designers should analyze operational requirements, such as
time of day and network traffic load considerations, and explain how
proposed protocols or modifications to protocols will interact with
them. Protocols designers should analyze increases in network
traffic and the operational efficiency impact of proposed changes or
protocols.
5. Security Considerations
This document provides an overview of various areas of concern in the
interaction between network performance and the use of energy
efficient control planes to improve the energy efficiency of a
network. As such, it doesn't introduce any new security risk.
However, providing an API or other mechanism to dynamically modify
available bandwidth, put devices in reduced energy states, and
otherwise modify network behavior introduces surfaces along which
attackers can use to deny effective service to critical applications.
By reducing the amount of available bandwidth along a link by
invoking energy saving mechanisms, for instance, an attacker could
reduce the performance of an application, harming the interests of
organizations relying on the network.
Protocol designers should carefully consider the introduction of any
potential vulverabilities as a result of the implementation of an
energy aware control plane.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors of this document would like to acknowledge the
suggestions and ideas provided by Sujata Banerjee, Puneet Sharma,
Dirk Von Hugo, and John Scudder.
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
8. References
8.1. Informative References
[IEEE_802.3az_2010]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology-- Local
and metropolitan area networks-- Specific requirements--
Part 3: CSMA/CD Access Method and Physical Layer
Specifications Amendment 5: Media Access Control
Parameters, Physical Layers, and Management Parameters for
Energy-Efficient Ethernet", IEEE 802-3az-2010,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.5621025, 11 July 2013,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5621025>.
[Krioukov] Krioukov, D., "On Compact Routing for the Internet", 2007,
<http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2007/
compact_routing/>.
[RFC2501] Corson, S. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
(MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2501, January 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2501>.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.
[RFC7326] Parello, J., Claise, B., Schoening, B., and J. Quittek,
"Energy Management Framework", RFC 7326,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7326, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7326>.
[SDO-3GPP.25.927]
3GPP and B. Prakash, "Solutions for energy saving within
UTRA Node B", 3GPP TR 25.927 14.0.0, 25 March 2017,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
archive/25_series/25.927/25927-e00.zip>.
Authors' Addresses
Alvaro Retana
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Email: aretana@futurewei.com
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Energy Aware Control Planes August 2023
Russ White
Akamai Technologies
Email: russw@riw.us
Manuel Paul
Deutsche Telekom AG
Email: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de
Retana, et al. Expires 25 February 2024 [Page 15]
