GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3251

Network Working Group B. Rajagopalan Request for Comments: 3251 Tellium, Inc. Category: Informational 1 April 2002

                        Electricity over IP

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 Mostly Pointless Lamp Switching (MPLampS) is an architecture for
 carrying electricity over IP (with an MPLS control plane).  According
 to our marketing department, MPLampS has the potential to
 dramatically lower the price, ease the distribution and usage, and
 improve the manageability of delivering electricity.  This document
 is motivated by such work as SONET/SDH over IP/MPLS (with apologies
 to the authors).  Readers of the previous work have been observed
 scratching their heads and muttering, "What next?".  This document
 answers that question.
 This document has also been written as a public service.  The "Sub-
 IP" area has been formed to give equal opportunity to those working
 on technologies outside of traditional IP networking to write
 complicated IETF documents.  There are possibly many who are
 wondering how to exploit this opportunity and attain high visibility.
 Towards this goal, we see the topics of "foo-over-MPLS" (or MPLS
 control for random technologies) as highly amenable for producing a
 countless number of unimplementable documents.  This document
 illustrates the key ingredients that go into producing any "foo-
 over-MPLS" document and may be used as a template for all such work.

1. Conventions used in this document

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "DO", "DON'T", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
 "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", "MAY BE"
 and "OPTIONAL" in this document do not mean anything.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 1] RFC 3251 Electricity over IP 1 April 2002

2. Pre-requisite for reading this document

 While reading this document, at various points the readers may have
 the urge to ask questions like, "does this make sense?", "is this
 feasible?," and "is the author sane?".  The readers must have the
 ability to suppress such questions and read on.  Other than this, no
 specific technical background is required to read this document.  In
 certain cases (present document included), it may be REQUIRED that
 readers have no specific technical background.

3. Introduction

 It was recently brought to our attention that the distribution
 network for electricity is not an IP network!  After absorbing the
 shock that was delivered by this news, the following thoughts
 occurred to us:
 1. Electricity distribution must be based on some outdated technology
    (called "Legacy Distribution System" or LDS in the rest of the
    document).
 2. An LDS not based on the Internet technology means that two
    different networks (electricity and IP) must be administered and
    managed.  This leads to inefficiencies, higher cost and
    bureaucratic foul-ups (which possibly lead to blackouts in
    California.  We are in the process of verifying this using
    simulations as part of a student's MS thesis).
 3. The above means that a single network technology (i.e., IP) must
    be used to carry both electricity and Internet traffic.
 4. An internet draft must be written to start work in this area,
    before someone else does.
 5. Such a draft can be used to generate further drafts, ensuring that
    we (and CCAMP, MPLS or another responsible working group) will be
    busy for another year.
 6. The draft can also be posted in the "white papers" section of our
    company web page, proclaiming us as revolutionary pioneers.
 Hence the present document.

4. Terminology

 MPLampS: Mostly Pointless Lamp Switching - the architecture
 introduced in this document.
 Lamp: An end-system in the MPLampS architecture (clashes with the
 IETF notion of end-system but of course, we DON'T care).
 LER: Low-voltage Electricity Receptor - fancy name for "Lamp".

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 2] RFC 3251 Electricity over IP 1 April 2002

 ES: Electricity source - a generator.
 LSR: Load-Switching Router - an MPLampS device used in the core
 electricity distribution network.
 LDS: Legacy Distribution System - an inferior electricity
 distribution technology that MPLampS intends to replace.
 RSVP: Rather Screwed-up, but router Vendors Push it - an IP signaling
 protocol.
 RSVP-TE: RSVP with Tariff Extensions - RSVP adaptation for MPLampS,
 to be used in the new deregulated utilities environment.
 CRLDP: for CRying out Loud, Don't do rsvP - another IP signaling
 protocol.
 OSPF: Often Seizes-up in multiPle area conFigurations - a
 hierarchical IP routing protocol.
 ISIS: It's not oSpf, yet It somehow Survives - another routing
 protocol.
 OSPF-TE, ISIS-TE: OSPF and ISIS with Tariff Extensions.
 COPS: Policemen.  Folks who scour all places for possibilities to
 slip in the Common Open Policy Service protocol.
 VPN: Voltage Protected Network - allows a customer with multiple
 sites to receive electricity with negligible voltage fluctuation due
 to interference from other customers.
 SUB-IP: SUBstitute IP everywhere - an effort in the IETF to get
 involved in technical areas outside of traditional IP networking
 (such as MPLampS).
 ITU: International Tariffed Utilities association - a utilities trade
 group whose work is often ignored by the IETF.

5. Background

 We dug into the electricity distribution technology area to get some
 background.  What we found stunned us, say, with the potency of a
 bare 230V A/C lead dropped into our bathtub while we were still in
 it.  To put it simply, electricity is generated and distributed along
 a vast LDS which does not have a single router in it (LSR or
 otherwise)!  Furthermore, the control of devices in this network is
 mostly manual, done by folks driving around in trucks.  After

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 3] RFC 3251 Electricity over IP 1 April 2002

 wondering momentarily about how such a network can exist in the 21st
 century, we took a pencil and paper and sketched out a scenario for
 integrating the LDS network with the proven Internet technology.  The
 fundamental points we came up with are:
 1. IP packets carry electricity in discrete, digitized form.
 2. Each packet would deliver electricity to its destination (e.g., a
    device with an IP address) on-demand.
 3. MPLS control will be used to switch packets within the core LDS,
    and in the edge premises.  The architecture for this is referred
    to as Mostly-Pointless Lamp Switching (MPLampS).
 4. The MPLampS architectural model will accommodate both the overlay
    model, where the electricity consuming devices (referred to as
    "lamps") are operated over a distinct control plane, and the peer
    model, in which the lamps and the distribution network use a
    single control plane.
 5. RSVP-TE (RSVP with Tariff Extensions) will be used for
    establishing paths for electricity flow in a de-regulated
    environment.
 6. COPS will be used to support accounting and policy.
 After jotting these points down, we felt better.  We then noted the
 following immediate advantages of the proposed scheme:
 1. Switches and transformers in the LDS can be replaced by LSRs,
    thereby opening up a new market for routers.
 2. Electricity can be routed over the Internet to reach remote places
    which presently do not have electricity connections but have only
    Internet kiosks (e.g., rural India).
 3. Electrical technicians can be replaced by highly paid IP network
    administrators, and
 4. The IETF can get involved in another unrelated technology area.
 In the following, we describe the technical issues in a vague manner.

6. Electricity Encoding

 The Discrete Voltage Encoding (DVE) scheme has been specified in ITU
 standard G.110/230V [2] to digitize electrical voltages.  In essence,
 an Electricity Source (ES) such as a generator is connected to a DV
 encoder that encodes the voltage and current, and  produces a bit
 stream.  This bit stream can be carried in IP packets to various
 destinations (referred to as LERs - Low-voltage Electricity
 Receptors) on-demand.  At the destination, a DV decoder produces the
 right voltage and current based on the received bit stream.  It is to
 be determined whether the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) can be

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 4] RFC 3251 Electricity over IP 1 April 2002

 used for achieving synchronization and end-to-end control.  We leave
 draft writing opportunities in the RTP area to our friends and
 colleagues.

7. MPLampS Architecture

7.1 Overview

 In an LDS, the long-haul transmission of electricity is at high
 voltages.  The voltage is stepped down progressively as electricity
 flows into local distribution networks and is finally delivered to
 LERs at a standard voltage (e.g., 110V).  Thus, the LDS is a
 hierarchical network.  This immediately opens up the possibility of
 OSPF and ISIS extensions for routing electricity in a transmission
 network, but we'll contain the urge to delve into these productive
 internet draft areas until later.  For the present, we limit our
 discussion merely to controlling the flow of electricity in an IP-
 based distribution network using MPLampS.
 Under MPLampS, a voltage is equated to a label.  In the distribution
 network, each switching element and transformer is viewed as a load-
 switching router (LSR).  Each IP packet carrying an electricity flow
 is assigned a label corresponding to the voltage.  Electricity
 distribution can then be trivially reduced to the task of label
 (voltage) switching as electricity flows through the distribution
 network.  The configuration of switching elements in the distribution
 network is done through RSVP-TE to provide electricity on demand.
 We admit that the above description is vague and sounds crazy.  The
 example below tries to add more (useless) details, without removing
 any doubts the reader might have about the feasibility of this
 proposal:
 Example: Turning on a Lamp
 It is assumed that the lamp is controlled by an intelligent device
 (e.g, a (light) switch with an MPLampS control plane).  Turning the
 lamp on causes the switch to issue an RSVP-TE request (a PATH message
 with new objects) for the electricity flow.  This PATH message
 traverses across the network to the ES.  The RESV message issued in
 return sets up the label mappings in LSRs.  Finally, electricity
 starts flowing along the path established.  It is expected that the
 entire process will be completed within a few seconds, thereby giving
 the MPLampS architecture a distinct advantage over lighting a candle
 with a damp match stick.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 5] RFC 3251 Electricity over IP 1 April 2002

7.2 Overlay vs Peer Models

 As noted before, there are two control plane models to be considered.
 Under the overlay model, the lamps and the distribution network
 utilize distinct control planes.  Under the peer model, a single
 control plane is used.  A number of arguments can be made for one
 model versus the other, and these will be covered in the upcoming
 framework document.  We merely observe here that it is the lamp
 vendors who prefer the peer model against the better judgement of the
 LSR vendors.  We, however, want to please both camps regardless of
 the usefulness of either model.  We therefore note here that MPLampS
 supports both models and also migration scenarios from overlay to
 peer.

7.3 Routing in the Core Network

 The above description of the hierarchical distribution system
 immediately opens up the possibility of applying OSPF and ISIS with
 suitable extensions.  The readers may rest assured that we are
 already working on such concepts as voltage bundling, multi-area
 tariff extensions, insulated LSAs, etc.  Future documents will
 describe the details.

7.4 Voltage Protected Networks (VPNs)

 VPNs allow a customer with multiple sites to get guaranteed
 electricity supply with negligible voltage fluctuations due to
 interference from other customers.  Indeed, some may argue that the
 entire MPLampS architecture may be trashed if not for the possibility
 of doing VPNs.  Whatever be the case, VPNs are a hot topic today and
 the readers are forewarned that we have every intention of writing
 several documents on this.  Specifically, BGP-support for VPNs is an
 area we're presently eyeing with interest.

8. Multicast

 It has been observed that there is a strong spatial and temporal
 locality in electricity demand.  ITU Study Group 55 has studied this
 phenomenon for over a decade and has issued a preliminary report.
 This report states that when a lamp is turned on in one house, it is
 usually the case that lamps are turned on in neighboring houses at
 around the same time (usually at dusk) [3].  This observation has a
 serious implication on the scalability of the signaling mechanism.
 Specifically, the distribution network must be able to handle tens of
 thousands of requests all at once.  The signaling load can be reduced
 if multicast delivery is used.  Briefly, a request for electricity is
 not sent from the lamp all the way to an ES, but is handled by the
 first LSR that is already in the path to another lamp.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 6] RFC 3251 Electricity over IP 1 April 2002

 Support for this requires the application of multicast routing
 protocols together with RSVP-TE shared reservation styles and the
 development of MPLampS multicast forwarding mode.  We are currently
 studying the following multicast routing protocol:
 o DVMRP: Discrete Voltage Multicast Routing Protocol - this protocol
 works over existing voltage routing protocols but the danger here is
 that electricity is delivered to all lamps when any one lamp is
 turned on.  Indeed, the switching semantics gets annoying - all lamps
 get turned on periodically and those not needed must be switched off
 each time manually.
 Other protocols we will eventually consider are Current-Based Tree
 (CBT) and Practically Irrelevant Multicast (PIM).  An issue we are
 greatly interested in is multicast scope: we would like support for
 distributing electricity with varying scope, from lamps within a
 single Christmas tree to those in entire cities.  Needless to say, we
 will write many detailed documents on these topics as time
 progresses.

9. Security Considerations

 This document MUST be secured in a locked cabinet to prevent it from
 being disposed off with the trash.

10. Summary

 This document described the motivation and high level concepts behind
 Mostly Pointless Lamp Switching (MPLampS), an architecture for
 electricity distribution over IP.  MPLampS utilizes DVE (discrete
 voltage encoding), and an MPLS control plane in the distribution
 network.  Since the aim of this document is to be a high-visibility
 place-holder, we did not get into many details of MPLampS.  Numerous
 future documents, unfortunately, will attempt to provide these
 details.

11. References

 1. A. Malis, et al., "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over MPLS
    (CEM) Encapsulation", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.
 2. International Tarriffed Utilities association draft standard, ITU
    G.110/230V, "Discrete Voltage Encoding", March, 1999.
 3. International Tarriffed Utilities association technical report,
    ITU (SG-55) TR-432-2000, "Empirical Models for Energy
    Utilization", September, 2000.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 7] RFC 3251 Electricity over IP 1 April 2002

12. Disclaimer

 The opinions expressed in this document are solely the author's.
 Company's opinions, as always, are proprietary and confidential and
 may be obtained under appropriate NDAs.

13. Author's Address

 Bala Rajagopalan
 Tellium, Inc.
 2 Crescent Place
 Ocean Port, NJ 07757
 Phone: 732-923-4237
 EMail: braja@tellium.com

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 8] RFC 3251 Electricity over IP 1 April 2002

14. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 9]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3251.txt · Last modified: 2002/03/28 17:06 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki