From nobody Thu Jun 15 00:21:29 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: e-impact@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: e-impact@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE3AC15171E for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Kze_O9lf24M for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailg110.ethz.ch (mailg110.ethz.ch [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:5605::21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA0DCC151717 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailm113.d.ethz.ch (2001:67c:10ec:5602::25) by mailg110.ethz.ch (2001:67c:10ec:5605::21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:21:18 +0200 Received: from [192.168.200.161] (194.230.147.237) by mailm113.d.ethz.ch (2001:67c:10ec:5602::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:21:16 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:21:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 To: References: Content-Language: en-US From: Romain Jacob In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms090907060306090705080109" X-Originating-IP: [194.230.147.237] X-ClientProxiedBy: mailm211.d.ethz.ch (2001:67c:10ec:5603::25) To mailm113.d.ethz.ch (2001:67c:10ec:5602::25) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [E-impact] Metrics for E-Impact and Sustainability -- Summary and Next Steps X-BeenThere: e-impact@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Environmental impacts of the Internet List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 07:21:29 -0000 --------------ms090907060306090705080109 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------cYIfUtvvti2clfYdxfNI8VPm" --------------cYIfUtvvti2clfYdxfNI8VPm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Dom, I think you make an important point: we must differentiate between proportionality in _traffic_  and _network capacity._ I've been arguing for research to improve energy proportionality within the network (L2 and L3). But what I have in mind is not "reducing the traffic volume to save energy" (as pointed out many times, there are only little gains here). Rather, I'm thinking about "dynamic capacity modulation" in ways that yield energy savings. What I mean by "capacity modulation" is, e.g., turning off ports when you don't need them. Another example is adjusting the capacity of the transceivers (e.g., by changing the modulation scheme, use fewer frequencies/wavelengths, playing with the laser power, etc.). It's really unclear how much savings this can yield, but I think it's worth considering. I've done some initial research in that direction; the first results will be presented at HotCarbon in a couple of weeks (I'm working on the final paper at the moment). [ And thanks Carlos for the constructive warp-up! ] Best, -- Romain On 15/06/2023 09:02, Dom Robinson wrote: > This cisco blog talks about ‘G’ > > Looks to me like Gbps. If so its a measure of capacity provisioning > not traffic use. It would only be comparable to GB at 100% > utilisation. At 100% utilisation there is no ‘proportionality’ anyway > so its a distraction to infer that that report correlates traffic to > energy. > > This collective attempt to find traffic / energy proportionality ‘at > all costs’ seems lazy. Why do we NEED to wed our energy efficiency to > designs revolving around data optimisation? > > Is it because economic systems are prolific that measure data transfer > for billing and its then easy / lazy to conjure some CO2 correlation? > Certainly i believe this is part of the appeal. Its a quick (apparent) > win. > > I now an convinced that ‘NOT sending data does NOT save any energy’ in > transmission networks. The energy quanta scales with provisioning > capacity. No one anywhere has convinced me otherwise. > > I am and remain wide open to being convinced. > > But no one has. > > A further part of the problem is conflating layers. Layer 4 has high > energy proportionality but in IETF terms that is the ‘ends’ of the > end-to-end principle and out of scope. > > Layer 3 (IETF home land) is abstract and exists conceptually but is > really a point of interop between layer 2 and 4. > > Layer 2 is variable. Some radio network have a proportionality with on > / off but in practice the requirement for 24/7 signal path > availability generally means the on time dominates. > > And layer 1 is all about CO2e which is a)certainly capacity > provisioning related and not traffic-elastic and b) something of a > different conversation from an IETF ‘protocol development’ perspective. > > So until someone highlights a good report showing any energy > proportionality with traffic I remain focussed on how we are > provisioning capacity to layer3 rather than on ‘reducing traffic’. > > However I also think that there is MUCH that is energy proportional in > Layer 4: Not encoding. Not storing. Not background pre-processing.. > all these ‘nots’ DO reduce energy requirements and measurably. > > However they are not proportional to traffic signalled over the > internet in Layer3. > > > > -- > Dom Robinson > www.id3as.co.uk > www.greeningofstreaming.org > uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson > Meet >> https://calendly.com/id3as > >> On 15 Jun 2023, at 02:12, Rudolf van der Berg >> wrote: >> >>  >> That i shouldn't respond this late on a mobile phone. Too many errors >> and mixed temperature and traffic in one sentence >> >> But first proposal; please get us some real data on energy use of >> equipment and show what effect several parameters have on energy use >> >> Op do 15 jun. 2023 02:58 schreef Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >> : >> >> So the useful proposal is? >> >> More later as well :-) >> >> Carlos Pignataro (He/Him) >> >>> On Jun 14, 2023, at 8:54 PM, Rudolf van der Berg >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks!! This is awesome. It is also way past my bed time, so I >>> will respond later. I do see I wrote traffic lights, where I >>> meant street lighting! That said it is about their energy use, >>> which certainly for most street lights is not proportional to >>> traffic and likely not much either for traffic lights, though >>> maybe with some demand response systems it might affect the >>> distribution of red, green and orange and their number. >>> >>> When it comes to cat videos, given that they form much of what >>> some family members communicat(e) some people lack an >>> understanding of utility functions, cats trump IAB any day of >>> the week. It is not up to us to clarify bits. It is my ISPs job >>> to push them and respect my privacy and net neutrality and >>> certainly not to assume what is valuable. If your net worth >>> beats Grumpy Cat or Taylor Swift's cat than maybe what you do >>> may be more valuable than cat videos. So no the point of the >>> Internet is not to push bits. It is to interconnect. To be >>> connected. The amount of bits and how they are pushed is not >>> relevant for the value of being connected. a PSTN line was >>> powered 24/7 for good reason. So is my parents FTTH or my FTTH. >>> >>> So yes relating these to desired effect is to relate them to >>> being connected. What the bits are and do and your opinion of >>> the context of the bits is irrelevant (and should you actually >>> peek in the packets, a criminal offense) So if you look for a >>> metric relative to something, try per user or port. >>> >>> With regards to there being absolutely no correlation between >>> bita transferred and energy consumption, you caught me, I was >>> using a style figur, known as a hyperbole. I had hoped that >>> someone, maybe at a router manufacturer (Juniper, Nokia, Arista >>> etc.) would actually show real data on how power use of a router >>> varies under load in real life situations. I used to use this >>> Cisco report that said energy use under load vs idle was at most >>> 20W, which was 1% for A 6509 with 150 ports, but it is old and >>> it may just not be the case anymore. >>> Cisco 6509 energy.pdf >>> >>> >>> But pls point me to resources that have better data. The blog >>> you point to doesn't provide data. I can't see what relative >>> effects are and how this is affected by traffic shifted over a >>> day, peak levels and duration of use,  traffic load, number of >>> users, outside temperature, humidity or geographic spread. >>> >>> With regards to logical fallacy. Of geographic spread causes >>> such differentiation that the statistics aren't comparable >>> between operators, than would it not be realistic for us to >>> factor that in into the metrics?  Maybe the IAB can advise >>> people to all live in a country as densily populated as the >>> Netherlands. However, even if geography determines energy use, I >>> would still like to have the relatie impact of traffic levels in >>> this equation too! I also take negative correlations, such as >>> the one where KPN lowered energy use by 50 over the last decade, >>> but increased traffic 20 times!!  I am also willing to admit >>> defeat and incompetence If you show that yes overall energy flow >>> decreased but all of that was from electricity use of peripheral >>> systems and not the actual network it self. >>> >>> How comparability is a logical fallacy is beyond me and defies >>> every tenet of methods and techniwques of academic social >>> science research I had in my freshman year. It is exactly by >>> comparing whether the same traffic as well as different levels >>> of traffic on the same network or other networks under differing >>> conditions actually changes the results. eg; when traffic is the >>> same in same nerworke and difference in temperature is 5 >>> degrees, if energy use changes, we can attribute the changes to >>> traffic.if traffic grows 20% and energy use is same at the same >>> temp as well as the higher temp, then traffic may not be >>> relevant. Or we may see minimal changes in energy use etc. You >>> know, like in the Cisco article where energy use per capacity is >>> not stable across routers of varying sizes, which suggests >>> capacity is only one, but not very dominant factor... >>> >>> More to come later >>> >>> Op do 15 jun. 2023 00:23 schreef Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >>> : >>> >>> Hi, E-impact, >>> >>> After re-reading and parsing through the thread >>> , >>> I wanted to offer a summary set of highlights and >>> observations, hopefully with a bias towards usefulness to >>> the IETF-driven outcomes, removing underlying assumptions, >>> and way finding common grounds and next steps. >>> >>> >>> _Desired effect, resources, and comparability: _ >>> >>>> On May 15, 2023, at 5:35 PM, Rudolf van der Berg >>>> wrote: >>>> Ok, I will be pedantic... efficient is defined as achieving >>>> a desired effect while not wasting resources. >>> >>> First, if a key desired effect of the Internet (roughly >>> paraphrasing §2 of RFC 3935) is achieving various types of >>> communications between parties connected to it, bits and >>> traffic are a vehicle towards that goal. Avoiding here the >>> judgement or qualification of usefulness just yet — Michael >>> Richardson rightly pointed out that Spam and cat videos are >>> not of the same usefulness value. So, packets/bits pushed is >>> an important outcome. >>> >>> >>> On May 15, 2023, at 5:36 PM, Dom Robinson >>> wrote: >>>> “ kWh consumption by operator is somewhat meaningless as well” >>>> >>>> I have to disagree with that, since the absolute amount of >>>> energy that they use, regardless of the number of >>>> subscribers or distribution, is it direct measure in the >>>> drain on energy resources. >>> >>> Also, electrical energy is a key resource — and for now also >>> not considering emission factors, etc., as Lars had >>> suggested the ‘all is bad’ approach for simplicity. >>> >>> From these two points, I would consider it not unreasonable >>> to ratio resources per unit of desired effect — even >>> starting at the network level. >>> >>> Taking this as a (potentially unpolished) start, there seem >>> to be at least a couple of conflicting points, primarily or >>> summed up as >>> >>>> On May 15, 2023, at 3:26 PM, Rudolf van der Berg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> the simple reality is that energy use and data traffic have >>>> no correlation in fixed and mobile broadband networks. It >>>> is like measuring the efficiency of cars based on wiper >>>> fluid use. Or traffic lights energy use based on the number >>>> of cars that drive by. >>> >>> The first sentence here expresses an absolute that does not >>> match my experience. While clearly the relationship is not >>> linear with zero intercept, the blog >>>  referenced >>> before explains how, within a networking device, router, >>> switch, etc., different modules have different >>> characteristics of power consumption. >>> >>> * Some require constant power independent of traffic flow >>> — but can be turned off in the absence of traffic >>> * Some are simply idle power and independent of traffic load >>> * Some are dependent of packet load (pps) >>> * Others correlate to and are a function of bit load and >>> bandwidth (bps) >>> >>> >>> Now, this tells me there is *some* correlation — might not >>> be linear with zero intercept, but there is some. Even if >>> idle power is a high percentage, there’s a variable >>> depending on data traffic. >>> >>> The danger of making ~ “no correlation” bold absolute >>> statements, is that a simple counter-example and >>> #houseofcards... >>> >>> [as an aside, knowing nothing about traffic light planning, >>> but I can find sensibility in the relationship between >>> traffic lights🚦and number of cars 🚗 driving by, and would >>> not ridicule such measuring of the efficiency of a traffic >>> light system — more 🚗🚙🚕🏎️ for a single 🚥 versus 🚦🚦🚦🚦] >>> >>>> Op ma 15 mei 2023 17:25 schreef Rob Wilton (rwilton) >>>> : >>>> >>>> I struggle to understand how “traffic and energy use >>>> are in no way and have never been related”. >>>> >>> I struggled as well… >>> >>>> On May 15, 2023, at 3:26 PM, Rudolf van der Berg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> As I explained there is no scientific basis for the metric. >>>> If you look at the work by professor Manner, you will see >>>> that using the metric to make prognosis about the Finnish >>>> mobile networks electricity use leads to estimates 3 times >>>> higher than the official figures. >>> >>> The issue of comparability seems to be the fallacy on the logic. >>> >>> As it was mentioned already by many, same traffic on a more >>> geo spread-out network, versus a dense metro network versus >>> Ecuador versus Canada temperatures versus… >>> >>> >>>> On May 26, 2023, at 3:52 AM, Dom Robinson >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree that taking an holistic view is paramount. >>> + >>>> On Jun 9, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Romain Jacob >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> We discussed several times on this mailing list that we >>>> have a rather poor understanding of the energy consumed by >>>> switches and routers depending on their load and >>>> configuration. One way to address this problem is to >>>> perform "black box" measurement of the power drawn by such >>>> device and fit a power model for it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> One thing I’d expect we might agree is that the problem >>> space is highly complex, brutally interdependent, and deeply >>> nuanced. >>> In this, RFC 1925, truth #5 came to mind. >>> >>> Instead of decomposing a routing system, taking a ‘black >>> box’ approach shows some relationship of traffic <-> energy. >>> The scope of comparison might be narrow, and as someone >>> suggested could even be limited to a given deployment as >>> f(time). >>> >>> We could define the most realistic variations, including: >>> >>> * kWh/GB Optics excluded >>> * kWh/GB including storage to transport, etc. >>> >>> >>> Or: >>>> On Jun 9, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Romain Jacob >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> o energy efficiency, measured as "maximum power >>>> consumed divided by the maximum capacity" >>>> o energy proportionality index, capturing how far the >>>> device is from being perfectly power-proportional >>>> to the load: (max_power - idle_power)/ max_power >>>> >>> But: >>> >>>> On May 15, 2023, at 6:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> All very interesting but how does this help the IETF >>>> improve its protocol designs? >>> >>> Suggesting and anchoring on a small number of relevant >>> metrics, as per above (as a start), instead of attempting to >>> “ban” others. >>> >>> And also benchmarking power measurement. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Carlos Pignataro (He/Him) >>> >>> -- >>> E-impact mailing list >>> E-impact@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact >>> >> >> -- >> E-impact mailing list >> E-impact@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact > -- Romain JACOB Postdoctoral Researcher ETH Zurich Networked Systems Group (NSG) Lead: Prof. Laurent Vanbever www.romainjacob.net @RJacobPartner @jacobr@discuss.systems Gloriastrasse 35, ETZ G81 8092 Zurich +41 7 68 16 88 22 --------------cYIfUtvvti2clfYdxfNI8VPm Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Dom,

I think you make an important point: we must differentiate between proportionality in _traffic_  and _network capacity._

I've been arguing for research to improve energy proportionality within the network (L2 and L3). But what I have in mind is not "reducing the traffic volume to save energy" (as pointed out many times, there are only little gains here). Rather, I'm thinking about "dynamic capacity modulation" in ways that yield energy savings.

What I mean by "capacity modulation" is, e.g., turning off ports when you don't need them. Another example is adjusting the capacity of the transceivers (e.g., by changing the modulation scheme, use fewer frequencies/wavelengths, playing with the laser power, etc.). It's really unclear how much savings this can yield, but I think it's worth considering. I've done some initial research in that direction; the first results will be presented at HotCarbon in a couple of weeks (I'm working on the final paper at the moment).

[ And thanks Carlos for the constructive warp-up! ]

Best,
--
Romain

On 15/06/2023 09:02, Dom Robinson wrote:
This cisco blog talks about ‘G’ 

Looks to me like Gbps. If so its a measure of capacity provisioning not traffic use. It would only be comparable to GB at 100% utilisation. At 100% utilisation there is no ‘proportionality’ anyway so its a distraction to infer that that report correlates traffic to energy.

This collective attempt to find traffic / energy proportionality ‘at all costs’ seems lazy. Why do we NEED to wed our energy efficiency to designs revolving around data optimisation? 

Is it because economic systems are prolific that measure data transfer for billing and its then easy / lazy to conjure some CO2 correlation? Certainly i believe this is part of the appeal. Its a quick (apparent) win.

I now an convinced that ‘NOT sending data does NOT save any energy’ in transmission networks. The energy quanta scales with provisioning capacity. No one anywhere has convinced me otherwise. 

I am and remain wide open to being convinced.

But no one has.

A further part of the problem is conflating layers. Layer 4 has high energy proportionality but in IETF terms that is the ‘ends’ of the end-to-end principle and out of scope.

Layer 3 (IETF home land) is abstract and exists conceptually but is really a point of interop between layer 2 and 4.

Layer 2 is variable. Some radio network have a proportionality with on / off but in practice the requirement for 24/7 signal path availability generally means the on time dominates.

And layer 1 is all about CO2e which is a)certainly capacity provisioning related and not traffic-elastic and b) something of a different conversation from an IETF ‘protocol development’ perspective.

So until someone highlights a good report showing any energy proportionality with traffic I remain focussed on how we are provisioning capacity to layer3 rather than on ‘reducing traffic’.

However I also think that there is MUCH that is energy proportional in Layer 4: Not encoding. Not storing. Not background pre-processing.. all these ‘nots’ DO reduce energy requirements and measurably.

However they are not proportional to traffic signalled over the internet in Layer3.




On 15 Jun 2023, at 02:12, Rudolf van der Berg <rudolfvanderberg@gmail.com> wrote:


That i shouldn't respond this late on a mobile phone. Too many errors and mixed temperature and traffic in one sentence

But first proposal; please get us some real data on energy use of equipment and show what effect several parameters have on energy use

Op do 15 jun. 2023 02:58 schreef Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>:
So the useful proposal is?

More later as well :-)

Carlos Pignataro (He/Him)

On Jun 14, 2023, at 8:54 PM, Rudolf van der Berg <rudolfvanderberg@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks!! This is awesome. It is also way past my bed time, so I will respond later. I do see I wrote traffic lights, where I meant street lighting! That said it is about their energy use, which certainly for most street lights is not proportional to traffic and likely not much either for traffic lights, though maybe with some demand response systems it might affect the distribution of red, green and orange and their number.

When it comes to cat videos, given that they form much of what some family members communicat(e) some people lack an understanding of utility functions, cats trump IAB any day of the week. It is not up to us to clarify bits. It is my ISPs job to push them and respect my privacy and net neutrality and certainly not to assume what is valuable. If your net worth beats Grumpy Cat or Taylor Swift's cat than maybe what you do may be more valuable than cat videos. So no the point of the Internet is not to push bits. It is to interconnect. To be connected. The amount of bits and how they are pushed is not relevant for the value of being connected. a PSTN line was powered 24/7 for good reason. So is my parents FTTH or my FTTH. 

So yes relating these to desired effect is to relate them to being connected. What the bits are and do and your opinion of the context of the bits is irrelevant (and should you actually peek in the packets, a criminal offense) So if you look for a metric relative to something, try per user or port. 

With regards to there being absolutely no correlation between bita transferred and energy consumption, you caught me, I was using a style figur, known as a hyperbole. I had hoped that someone, maybe at a router manufacturer (Juniper, Nokia, Arista etc.) would actually show real data on how power use of a router varies under load in real life situations. I used to use this Cisco report that said energy use under load vs idle was at most 20W, which was 1% for A 6509 with 150 ports, but it is old and it may just not be the case anymore. 
  Cisco 6509 energy.pdf
But pls point me to resources that have better data. The blog you point to doesn't provide data. I can't see what relative effects are and how this is affected by traffic shifted over a day, peak levels and duration of use,  traffic load, number of users, outside temperature, humidity or geographic spread.

With regards to logical fallacy. Of geographic spread causes such differentiation that the statistics aren't comparable between operators, than would it not be realistic for us to factor that in into the metrics?  Maybe the IAB can advise people to all live in a country as densily populated as the Netherlands. However, even if geography determines energy use, I would still like to have the relatie impact of traffic levels in this equation too! I also take negative correlations, such as the one where KPN lowered energy use by 50 over the last decade, but increased traffic 20 times!!  I am also willing to admit defeat and incompetence If you show that yes overall energy flow decreased but all of that was from electricity use of peripheral systems and not the actual network it self.

How comparability is a logical fallacy is beyond me and defies every tenet of methods and techniwques of academic social science research I had in my freshman year. It is exactly by comparing whether the same traffic as well as different levels of traffic on the same network or other networks under differing conditions actually changes the results. eg; when traffic is the same in same nerworke and difference in temperature is 5 degrees, if energy use changes, we can attribute the changes to traffic.if traffic grows 20% and energy use is same at the same temp as well as the higher temp, then traffic may not be relevant. Or we may see minimal changes in energy use etc. You know, like in the Cisco article where energy use per capacity is not stable across routers of varying sizes, which suggests capacity is only one, but not very dominant factor... 

More to come later

Op do 15 jun. 2023 00:23 schreef Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>:
Hi, E-impact,

After re-reading and parsing through the thread, I wanted to offer a summary set of highlights and observations, hopefully with a bias towards usefulness to the IETF-driven outcomes, removing underlying assumptions, and way finding common grounds and next steps.


Desired effect, resources, and comparability: 

On May 15, 2023, at 5:35 PM, Rudolf van der Berg <rudolfvanderberg@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, I will be pedantic... efficient is defined as achieving a desired effect while not wasting resources. 

First, if a key desired effect of the Internet (roughly paraphrasing §2 of RFC 3935) is achieving various types of communications between parties connected to it, bits and traffic are a vehicle towards that goal. Avoiding here the judgement or qualification of usefulness just yet — Michael Richardson rightly pointed out that Spam and cat videos are not of the same usefulness value. So, packets/bits pushed is an important outcome.

On May 15, 2023, at 5:36 PM, Dom Robinson <dom@id3as.co.uk> wrote:
“ kWh consumption by operator is somewhat meaningless as well”

I have to disagree with that, since the absolute amount of energy that they use, regardless of the number of subscribers or distribution, is it direct measure in the drain on energy resources.

Also, electrical energy is a key resource — and for now also not considering emission factors, etc., as Lars had suggested the ‘all is bad’ approach for simplicity.

From these two points, I would consider it not unreasonable to ratio resources per unit of desired effect — even starting at the network level. 

Taking this as a (potentially unpolished) start, there seem to be at least a couple of conflicting points, primarily or summed up as

On May 15, 2023, at 3:26 PM, Rudolf van der Berg <rudolfvanderberg@gmail.com> wrote:

the simple reality is that energy use and data traffic have no correlation in fixed and mobile broadband networks. It is like measuring the efficiency of cars based on wiper fluid use. Or traffic lights energy use based on the number of cars that drive by. 

The first sentence here expresses an absolute that does not match my experience. While clearly the relationship is not linear with zero intercept, the blog referenced before explains how, within a networking device, router, switch, etc., different modules have different characteristics of power consumption. 
  • Some require constant power independent of traffic flow — but can be turned off in the absence of traffic
  • Some are simply idle power and independent of traffic load
  • Some are dependent of packet load (pps)
  • Others correlate to and are a function of bit load and bandwidth (bps)

Now, this tells me there is *some* correlation — might not be linear with zero intercept, but there is some. Even if idle power is a high percentage, there’s a variable depending on data traffic.

The danger of making ~ “no correlation” bold absolute statements, is that a simple counter-example and #houseofcards...

[as an aside, knowing nothing about traffic light planning, but I can find sensibility in the relationship between traffic lights🚦and number of cars 🚗 driving by, and would not ridicule such measuring of the efficiency of a traffic light system — more 🚗🚙🚕🏎️ for a single 🚥 versus 🚦🚦🚦🚦]

Op ma 15 mei 2023 17:25 schreef Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>:

I struggle to understand how “traffic and energy use are in no way and have never been related”.

I struggled as well…

On May 15, 2023, at 3:26 PM, Rudolf van der Berg <rudolfvanderberg@gmail.com> wrote:

As I explained there is no scientific basis for the metric. If you look at the work by professor Manner, you will see that using the metric to make prognosis about the Finnish mobile networks electricity use leads to estimates 3 times higher than the official figures. 

The issue of comparability seems to be the fallacy on the logic.

As it was mentioned already by many, same traffic on a more geo spread-out network, versus a dense metro network versus Ecuador versus Canada temperatures versus… 


On May 26, 2023, at 3:52 AM, Dom Robinson <dom@id3as.co.uk> wrote:

I agree that taking an holistic view is paramount.
+
On Jun 9, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Romain Jacob <jacobr@ethz.ch> wrote:

We discussed several times on this mailing list that we have a rather poor understanding of the energy consumed by switches and routers depending on their load and configuration. One way to address this problem is to perform "black box" measurement of the power drawn by such device and fit a power model for it. 



One thing I’d expect we might agree is that the problem space is highly complex, brutally interdependent, and deeply nuanced.
In this, RFC 1925, truth #5 came to mind. 

Instead of decomposing a routing system, taking a ‘black box’ approach shows some relationship of traffic <-> energy. 
The scope of comparison might be narrow, and as someone suggested could even be limited to a given deployment as f(time). 

We could define the most realistic variations, including:
  • kWh/GB Optics excluded
  • kWh/GB including storage to transport, etc.

Or:
On Jun 9, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Romain Jacob <jacobr@ethz.ch> wrote:
    • energy efficiency, measured as "maximum power consumed divided by the maximum capacity"
    • energy proportionality index, capturing how far the device is from being perfectly power-proportional to the load: (max_power - idle_power)/ max_power
But:

On May 15, 2023, at 6:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

All very interesting but how does this help the IETF improve its protocol designs?

Suggesting and anchoring on a small number of relevant metrics, as per above (as a start), instead of attempting to “ban” others.

And also benchmarking power measurement.

Thanks!

Carlos Pignataro (He/Him)

--
E-impact mailing list
E-impact@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact

--
E-impact mailing list
E-impact@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact

--
Romain JACOB
Postdoctoral Researcher
ETH Zurich
Networked Systems Group (NSG)
Lead: Prof. Laurent Vanbever
Gloriastrasse 35, ETZ G81
8092 Zurich
+41 7 68 16 88 22
--------------cYIfUtvvti2clfYdxfNI8VPm-- --------------ms090907060306090705080109 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADCABgkqhkiG9w0BBwEAAKCC DL8wggX8MIID5KADAgECAhQ1sCzMpvtZ/k7hHVrwjBLEFihVyTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADBd MQswCQYDVQQGEwJDSDEmMCQGA1UECgwdUXVvVmFkaXMgVHJ1c3RsaW5rIFNjaHdlaXogQUcx JjAkBgNVBAMMHVF1b1ZhZGlzIFN3aXNzIEFkdmFuY2VkIENBIEc0MB4XDTIyMDIyMjE5NTMz MFoXDTI1MDIyMjIwMDMwMFowWzELMAkGA1UEBhMCQ0gxDzANBgNVBAgMBlp1cmljaDEPMA0G A1UEBwwGWnVyaWNoMRMwEQYDVQQKDApFVEggWnVyaWNoMRUwEwYDVQQDDAxSb21haW4gSmFj b2IwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDIfzUoSX5LBrSroX5Z4uBG8r8a BR3Gi6ALXKhMzRKvGQHM4QExwwOalxzN/LiUM7stWud4TfEyF+RIlr3lzSrarFRGr9cZp+7z HsXyI2CGitSkAtEegYIFNXiEh6jV/33noQfLBWPAkxqhDXr4Sc3xs2yQVsLoY6YLnUpCSYaa GDD3RFgg3bOJq82BWrQObnLUbe+SO6Gt8IfHWiwTtvv/EvPZUVCsge/c/XGQp9enghidS0E/ QKZdgYySKOyKMeUlIiN4MWJHXURdlJQ3bm0Ovm4z6hO0H3+LDyYWVF31/x4BJC56SseOEUXP aKFOZYean/t+i+MceuZRLY9e3j0fAgMBAAGjggG0MIIBsDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSVAeNZ11Vz 5MI2Dag7kkvZ5h4QfjCBhQYIKwYBBQUHAQEEeTB3MEkGCCsGAQUFBzAChj1odHRwOi8vdHJ1 c3QucXVvdmFkaXNnbG9iYWwuY29tL3F1b3ZhZGlzc3dpc3NhZHZhbmNlZGNhZzQuY3J0MCoG CCsGAQUFBzABhh5odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5xdW92YWRpc2dsb2JhbC5jb20wGQYDVR0RBBIwEIEO amFjb2JyQGV0aHouY2gwTgYDVR0gBEcwRTBDBgkrBgEEAb5YAWQwNjA0BggrBgEFBQcCARYo aHR0cDovL3d3dy5xdW92YWRpc2dsb2JhbC5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeTAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggr BgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwTAYDVR0fBEUwQzBBoD+gPYY7aHR0cDovL2NybC5xdW92YWRp c2dsb2JhbC5jb20vcXVvdmFkaXNzd2lzc2FkdmFuY2VkY2FnNC5jcmwwHQYDVR0OBBYEFNW8 ruAQiCMoYxbyHtAP+ubARnkYMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF4DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAgEA cOygT17tZWCdb50Oedkc4algFx/sIXbgB5UGjVpzpt1DwqXMcS8IgBFRtnwuaqkTjfIw18HX yuPq24qDuaC28XYeeoX+tIUolkUN18X4GGMJN6nwIvktYxCylHVJfM/Nsb/FROq8n4apyuaG weG/jidWKfoPhZHg0MHYVKzBqqVS/17G9dy1yCFQVsnO33k4m1ovWq9lSkuC1b4ssyJm1Cjr g5W4PxIUtC6Y2LNclddtYPim+Id9aOa2cwkm/8n0LJQ6J0VR+ZG//MGWFEUx0XDADRx+rb5I sIaqEul1tpeBzXQzWuNTC3Wzvdj++nnROJgwoZCkrUd5vRhu1mbAH3LkP8wE9DWhPElZ4mrN hm73WWrvXxqn0KSKzhcGrEqAMAXdsnvd4PCP1HLL7KJHcKX6IpzSFXYzmlvVjEAMAEr7+RkZ Bv4CpsmBIRya18NfEn+cRYRk/BWDqTTFpxh64aKQqP8fU/MwotYVXp0kzVAcmeN8t/tiIDjF mr3on6z37sqOxsxK75fDwTEoMnssEZmO26GfdQK52021HmwRoUfSxmbZ5uDdl3Fumm5pRkql DPo89tJPJNjFU5ARi8+qQWZ1sLMD06go4EQ5mvZ/pR4z2gfa33OGSB11LuJfVWUiZNAVK16g mVZrB8KM7DmIbg+x7zuGuNmZR4K25yyV2aUwgga7MIIEo6ADAgECAhR73LtvzU0CGch9SHn0 9NcVtrg0rjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADBIMQswCQYDVQQGEwJCTTEZMBcGA1UEChMQUXVvVmFk aXMgTGltaXRlZDEeMBwGA1UEAxMVUXVvVmFkaXMgUm9vdCBDQSAxIEczMB4XDTIwMDcyMjE4 MjU0NloXDTMwMDcyMDE4MjU0NlowXTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQ0gxJjAkBgNVBAoMHVF1b1ZhZGlz IFRydXN0bGluayBTY2h3ZWl6IEFHMSYwJAYDVQQDDB1RdW9WYWRpcyBTd2lzcyBBZHZhbmNl ZCBDQSBHNDCCAiIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggIPADCCAgoCggIBAJYIIuaqQ1xIJrBCkBfC zsIAo8QOqztjnZMETY/QWRVho22cXIb617iRYnyXvzZVfKjdm8qPCdRhscuusDdjcqVRe8bA UO8alUltOdUed+bfsQ7Gmgq7z2Lk/gDnSUg3Wg2cbMWRtZLMuCBnxbfgrPsA7xvYD6PvY5KK Af3SYTpkKAfPnH5xQGaKu0q2h2R3CA1QyM4d0pCXp/t62brkx/Fe1EUdn4AeHf7nmNCsZYpF kuLVLutzFjV1pFtIAM3KZG3asL9+0Wmc5m4XxDmckUgxmMjMjD4z0mjd97vctNWgrM/H7m2T xQldnm6yxo8xaYvlWfCkDQ1/NL6l5AI1vo/SOkbYFL1gplugUNvX7NTSOXQ10DqmZJH7XjCI pR1+FpNBWZQ4A2bimxCRPSe8EzgkifFJryD246R/pXW00ROLU+23eiAef89ZRK4uDQaRbPdL HwboL9LfERTmL+/Md7GEFqRQ3CLRhDp0r/AKc81Sv8PAwDA7jJK1p0unzf8F56fdmu8IH4Lj v+gQihFA+g2/51BSZ2j4UVhKA/0JqW0xnFW6Ygyp7hY0fMRuYCm6C5zqheHZW9zNwgfW+1bi IEakTP924t3qArN8dQxgHj3rhaqTATu4FzxPb3zKXzCCYrekYCvFp5Mz6EcbEHLAE7fJ8QdK J8AWv3eilCknbclbAgMBAAGjggGGMIIBgjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMB8GA1UdIwQY MBaAFKOX1vNeohDhq0WfPBdkPO4BcJzMMHQGCCsGAQUFBwEBBGgwZjA4BggrBgEFBQcwAoYs aHR0cDovL3RydXN0LnF1b3ZhZGlzZ2xvYmFsLmNvbS9xdnJjYTFnMy5jcnQwKgYIKwYBBQUH MAGGHmh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnF1b3ZhZGlzZ2xvYmFsLmNvbTBKBgNVHSAEQzBBMD8GBFUdIAAw NzA1BggrBgEFBQcCARYpaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucXVvdmFkaXNnbG9iYWwuY29tL3JlcG9zaXRv cnkwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMDsGA1UdHwQ0MDIwMKAuoCyGKmh0 dHA6Ly9jcmwucXVvdmFkaXNnbG9iYWwuY29tL3F2cmNhMWczLmNybDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUlQHj WddVc+TCNg2oO5JL2eYeEH4wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4ICAQA3 CznxSdjRk88hKJNwQRYsPBq8P2EmIEnmyVEywrmLj9tZ4WK9X2UnOupWFFXz6jSyBu5j5MAl 4qhLrDm7MB5kgT5TdA8mj1YndDXNnx52eue+wV0QA2muWHs4xZZVYdGd2sSpyFoNDJMQYoBK wOHKiUi2GzTFkPzGPcaO9CngJYSDEuG2JsIRpKkTfxzUkkbhQ1BOVXvBqECyWXtdlr/JAouX McpDDtPTrCTqSApPQZhjrQEG0NsCS8ru89zNthsQGIcI41YRsbbciosm1znQ9E5/RBclzugq G5bF9KhxxYNpCeTabxTm6OSAi7ZHhrk7DTVVn+fiLWalkDC5tnGeN0YJXtanPsZcLBzBNSZc rFu/L4heKHnxfwH49ZoeJF0wGtQqLazsrEv1zFfkSrsAq5LlW3AKcIT+7acfRpRyv1NbR4Jv f8+YZuxA/YZCMCLfWU5UKAKbyupSVE886zPo6iRT4FizlBu5/67mxGWqOpNDVz5uuwjJXLGU 46o5F3mOeU2Uzfy0Jpvk5SmUVpmXLMDVjn8B5GCrznRgBGfsSXgPQ4wVt8Diqbqf+aWcsCiW mJELvrf9ZYH8lkSPygAeh5jZFrQAm68NS/DxxuYuvCptE2FY7Me3mUedYsWqtQjOd4BWIWPJ V71OI4QH6qb6WRAvLScbcR/vVq8Xbz4ibzGCA4swggOHAgEBMHUwXTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQ0gx JjAkBgNVBAoMHVF1b1ZhZGlzIFRydXN0bGluayBTY2h3ZWl6IEFHMSYwJAYDVQQDDB1RdW9W YWRpcyBTd2lzcyBBZHZhbmNlZCBDQSBHNAIUNbAszKb7Wf5O4R1a8IwSxBYoVckwDQYJYIZI AWUDBAIBBQCgggHnMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8X DTIzMDYxNTA3MjEyMlowLwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMSIEIPqgD5EknFzGxRFYtuXQPqm1UQ8QDgZO mUvIWd3h8DJ+MGwGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFfMF0wCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEqMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBAjAK BggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAwBwYFKw4DAgcwDQYI KoZIhvcNAwICASgwgYQGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDF3MHUwXTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQ0gxJjAkBgNVBAoM HVF1b1ZhZGlzIFRydXN0bGluayBTY2h3ZWl6IEFHMSYwJAYDVQQDDB1RdW9WYWRpcyBTd2lz cyBBZHZhbmNlZCBDQSBHNAIUNbAszKb7Wf5O4R1a8IwSxBYoVckwgYYGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAIL MXegdTBdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJDSDEmMCQGA1UECgwdUXVvVmFkaXMgVHJ1c3RsaW5rIFNjaHdl aXogQUcxJjAkBgNVBAMMHVF1b1ZhZGlzIFN3aXNzIEFkdmFuY2VkIENBIEc0AhQ1sCzMpvtZ /k7hHVrwjBLEFihVyTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQAJtVPxv3cx3Lra9JrgyTQ0MOQEKlm+ r+k9AiT9Th18GUuCOvNAkuu0a/V0OJXZ1d5VKJYG1ZiWfxiSSIYuOP3k/SrmdUgMTbZ8A9K5 1H8QgqcJilVy8B3DRKZ2Q2xJh1hAmzhUU9fuwaaJ/X8r4eUDVsxIoC+wZjX8LEKRy3S4IQsx rrsagFiO/AsGg6d9ZBrzWcOJgNT9/IapQS+KmVIXF0CjTLznkCAUoFOw4or00D0BkJTV3N+B QI1yxiDBRKv0LcUf40Ce0jQXtlhkOtVtF+TzDypkmGCEMMzHCLpYrw1BuWqaglLHa3ghGzmg KwXhA1crVKhg7g8e+TeJmsGfAAAAAAAA --------------ms090907060306090705080109--