From nobody Tue May 9 06:58:41 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 45DCCC1516F2 for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 06:58:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thegreenwebfoundation.org 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 F7KTgUfygxBq for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 06:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 4.smtp.34sp.com (4.smtp.34sp.com [46.183.8.210]) (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 770C0C1516E2 for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth5.mailarray.34sp.com (lvs5.34sp.com [46.183.13.73]) by 4.smtp.34sp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63836BE0E4A for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 14:58:14 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thegreenwebfoundation.org; s=dkim; t=1683640694; bh=m1L7Iv4AGY957c2+Bi8dG0xuA0K6XE3n/exiJE0yZ4I=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=vRuh3+oeQuN07Wn38tcihGB6C4KLY3lzwfPJ4kjwR0i6vifJF5X+7yr5frIheyiWh xD+0AthNSmM3wXoZ4OH+J8tIyA6fLlIdFqzNfNfDnrL+gMQvpyr7xNRz+snayR4m58 TsAX37B/osAKgQJ9IUwbvGP34XSyl6H4wuUCvxdA= Received: from [2001:4091:a244:8029:7028:9c27:529f:792f] (port=42824 helo=smtpclient.apple) by smtpauth5.mailarray.34sp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pwNr4-0007nf-03; Tue, 09 May 2023 14:58:14 +0100 From: Chris Adams Message-Id: <3D7BA432-6B06-4426-9631-CE1A8831AE67@thegreenwebfoundation.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0651E302-8CEF-4992-99F4-B3129DAA544A" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\)) Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 15:58:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4D1C76EF-76F0-4FAC-8AAD-90C06CE11AB1@id3as.co.uk> Cc: Daniel Schien , e-impact@ietf.org, Paul Shabajee To: Dom Robinson References: <4D1C76EF-76F0-4FAC-8AAD-90C06CE11AB1@id3as.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.500.231) X-Authenticated-As: 2de73273b625ca0007baefbadf5a0ab8a433b10092c98f8690fcd5bcf1dec6c4 X-OriginalSMTPIP: 2001:4091:a244:8029:7028:9c27:529f:792f X-34spcom-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-34spcom-MailScanner-ID: 63836BE0E4A.A0F72 X-34spcom-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-34spcom-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-0.109, required 6.5, autolearn=disabled, DKIM_SIGNED 0.10, DKIM_VALID -0.10, DKIM_VALID_AU -0.10, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 0.00, SPF_PASS -0.00, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01) X-34spcom-MailScanner-From: chris@thegreenwebfoundation.org Archived-At: Subject: Re: [E-impact] Carbon-Intelligent Global Routing in Path-Aware Networks 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: Tue, 09 May 2023 13:58:40 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0651E302-8CEF-4992-99F4-B3129DAA544A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Related to this, I have a query. In network engineering, is there any developed language for talking = about the differences between attributional accounting for the use of = shared resource (i.e. how we distribute responsibility), and marginal = accounting (how we talk about the consequences of a particular = intervention)? In sustainability industry with the GHG protocol, the language is = consequential vs attributional=20 = https://ghginstitute.org/2021/04/21/the-most-important-ghg-accounting-conc= ept-you-may-not-have-heard-of-the-attributional-consequential-distinction/= You can see this most recently in a bunfight with the creation of the = software carbon intensity, between people arguing for one form of = measurement vs another - see the link below in this github pull request = as a proponent of marginal accounting (Henry Wattime) argues with a = proponent of attributional accounting (Ciril Emaps) https://github.com/Green-Software-Foundation/sci/pull/357 Using an attributional model can be problematic for the reasons Dan and = Dom describe, but at the same time, that PR features a common criticism = of using a marginal / consequential approach - that it relies on a = counterfactual. That is, for you to be able make a reliable statement about whether = powering down equipment would have led to someone switching off a dirty = form of electricity generation, you need to be able to demonstrate that = it happened because of your intervention, which is really hard. An equivalent for ICT? I figure the closest I can think of is the world of CDNs - one of the = benefits of content delivery networks is that they save capacity on busy = links by serving the same file from a store, closer to the requester, = using less congested routes. Is there something like this consequential vs attributional division = when talking about network capacity, and capacity planning? I feel like it might help when trying to make sense of the savings = claims you see in papers in the original email message. Chris Adams > On 9. May 2023, at 15:02, Dom Robinson wrote: >=20 > I have to say, Dan, I second you here. >=20 > As Dan alludes to, and as we are rapidly finding out evidentially = through work at GreeningofStreaming, as far as we can tell, nothing in = the networks at all, apart from some layer two transmission in Wireless = networks (perhaps a couple of percent anecdotally) is =E2=80=9Celastic=E2=80= =9D in terms of energy use relating to traffic transmission over = networks. =E2=80=9CNot using the Internet=E2=80=9D does not save anyone, = any energy anywhere in the network. It is on, provisioned for peak at = all times. Routers, switches, amps are inelastic.=20 >=20 > Video payloads do create variable energy workloads in =E2=80=9Clayer = 4=E2=80=9D (compute) at the ends of the network, where they are being = encoded and decoded, but the transmission of bits (all zeros - =E2=80=98no= information=E2=80=99, or a combination of zeros and ones - = =E2=80=98traffic=E2=80=99) doesn=E2=80=99t vary the network energy at = all.=20 >=20 > It is increasingly evident to me that it is a misleading urban myth to = correlate gigabytes of data transfer and carbon. I am looking for = somebody who can actually prove anything to me to contrast this = argument, and I have been looking hard for nearly 3 years now.. I = acknowledge that it=E2=80=99s easier for accounting firms to correlate = carbon to data transfer, because Network economics account for money in = terms of data transfer. But there is no relation between carbon and GB. >=20 > In fact, counterintuitively there is a stronger argument that using = =E2=80=9Cmore data=E2=80=9D commercially drives a swift migration to new = technologies, which almost invariably, save energy once utilisation = passes an equivalent point on the legacy network. Newer IT is almost = invariably more efficient. >=20 > Obviously this does not consider embedded emissions in the rollout = and physical deployment of such networks. However, in carbon intensity = terms - and I am conjecturing here - if you took all the internet kit = and burned it and turned it into energy, the energy release would = probably (i would guess) run the Internet for a few weeks at best, so = the operational energy is a much much more important element to consider = in sustainability terms in the long run in my opinion. >=20 > #catamongpigeons :) >=20 > --=20 > Dom Robinson > www.id3as.co.uk =20 > www.greeningofstreaming.org =20 > uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson > Meet >> https://calendly.com/id3as=20 >=20 >> On 9 May 2023, at 03:35, Daniel Schien = wrote: >>=20 >> =EF=BB=BF >> Sadly the paper draws the wrong conclusions - it makes the same = mistake of Obringer et al. in "The overlooked environmental footprint of = increasing Internet use. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2021" = who first develop an attributional estimate of the monthly carbon = footprint of a single user "their monthly carbon footprint would be 9.4 = kg CO2e." and then claim that "Simply turning off the video, however, = would reduce the monthly emissions to 377 g CO2e.=E2=80=9D - which is = not the case, because routers are notoriously inelastic. >>=20 >> Tabaeiaghdaei et al. combine a model of the dynamic carbon intensity = (very small) >> >>=20 >> with an attributional model of the idle power consumption (dominating = power consumption by far) >> >>=20 >>=20 >> They then wrongly apply it to bitrates from a number of content = providers to estimate savings. Because the idle energy consumption is = fix - the below estimates of savings do not actually materialise. >>=20 >> >>=20 >>=20 >> These accounting mistakes just don't stop. Reviewers are not aware of = it and let them pass. It also looks really impressive that Netflix = network footprint could be reduced by 68%. >>=20 >> Daniel Schien >> Senior Lecturer in Computer Science >> Department of Computer Science | University of Bristol >> Submit software engineering project ideas for 2022 >>=20 >> bris.ac.uk/software-engineering <> >> Watch: https://youtu.be/lU-ZsBDFWDI >>=20 >> Merchant Venturers Building , Woodland Rd Bristol, BS8 1UB >> Book a meeting: = https://outlook.office365.com/owa/calendar/OfficeHours@bristol.ac.uk/booki= ngs/ >>=20 >> From: E-impact on behalf of Dom Robinson = >> Sent: 04 May 2023 11:34 >> To: e-impact@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [E-impact] Carbon-Intelligent Global Routing in = Path-Aware Networks >> =20 >> Very interesting -thanks Hesham. >>=20 >> --=20 >> Dom Robinson >> www.id3as.co.uk =20 >> www.greeningofstreaming.org =20 >> uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson = >> Meet >> https://calendly.com/id3as=20 >>=20 >>> On 4 May 2023, at 11:14, Hesham ElBakoury = wrote: >>>=20 >>> =EF=BB=BF >>> This is a new SCION paper which uses SCION path aware architecture = to estimate and disseminate carbon intensity of inter-domain paths. You = can access the paper here: = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=3Dhttps://netsec.ethz.ch/public= ations/papers/green_routing2023.pdf&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&d=3D2221193519881579352= &ei=3DL39TZNbNL4HBsQKHg4Mw&scisig=3DAGlGAw8bvu6JoiUYgq86kLYpZ0W1&oi=3Dscho= laralrt&hist=3DLiEm55wAAAAJ:6297799576989356312:AGlGAw-I9fbYdpGr-eDV-oh3lI= TV&html=3D&pos=3D2&folt=3Drel&fols=3D >>>=20 >>> SCION team designed CIRo, a system for forecasting the carbon = intensity of inter-domain paths and disseminating them across the = Internet. Using SCION code base the team implemented CIRo PoC to = demonstrate the potential of CIRo for reducing the carbon footprint of = endpoints and end domains through large-scale simulations. CIRo PoC = shows that it can "reduce the carbon intensity of communications by at = least 47% for half of the domain pairs and the carbon footprint of = Internet usage by at least 50% for >>> 87% of end domain." >>>=20 >>> Hesham >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> E-impact mailing list >>> E-impact@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact > --=20 > E-impact mailing list > E-impact@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact --Apple-Mail=_0651E302-8CEF-4992-99F4-B3129DAA544A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Related to = this, I have a query.

In network engineering, is = there any developed language for talking about the differences between = attributional accounting for the use of shared resource (i.e. how we = distribute responsibility), and marginal accounting (how we talk about = the consequences of a particular = intervention)?

In sustainability industry with = the GHG protocol, the language is consequential vs = attributional 


You can see this most = recently in a bunfight with the creation of the software carbon = intensity, between people arguing for one form of measurement vs another = - see the link below in this github pull request as a proponent of = marginal accounting (Henry Wattime) argues with a proponent of = attributional accounting (Ciril Emaps)


Using an attributional model can be problematic for the reasons = Dan and Dom describe, but at the same time, that PR features a common = criticism of using a marginal / consequential approach - that it relies = on a counterfactual.

That is, for you to be = able make a reliable statement about whether powering down equipment = would have led to someone switching off a dirty form of electricity = generation, you need to be able to demonstrate that it happened = because of your intervention, which is really = hard.

An equivalent for = ICT?

I figure the closest I can think of is = the world of CDNs - one of the benefits of content delivery networks is = that they save capacity on busy links by serving the same file from a = store, closer to the requester, using less congested = routes.

Is there something like = this consequential vs attributional  = division when talking about network capacity, and capacity = planning?

I feel like it might help when trying = to make sense of the savings claims you see in papers in the original = email message.


Chris = Adams


On 9. May 2023, at 15:02, Dom = Robinson <dom@id3as.co.uk> wrote:

I have to say, = Dan, I second you here.

As Dan alludes to, and as we are = rapidly finding out evidentially through work at GreeningofStreaming, as = far as we can tell, nothing in the networks at all, apart from = some layer two transmission in Wireless networks (perhaps a couple of = percent anecdotally) is =E2=80=9Celastic=E2=80=9D in terms of energy use = relating to traffic transmission over networks. =E2=80=9CNot using the = Internet=E2=80=9D does not save anyone, any energy anywhere in = the network. It is on, provisioned for peak at all times. Routers, = switches, amps are inelastic. 

Video = payloads do create variable energy workloads in =E2=80=9Clayer 4=E2=80=9D = (compute) at the ends of the network, where they are being encoded and = decoded, but the transmission of bits (all zeros - =E2=80=98no = information=E2=80=99, or a combination of zeros and ones - = =E2=80=98traffic=E2=80=99) doesn=E2=80=99t vary the network energy at = all. 

It is increasingly evident to me = that it is a misleading urban myth to correlate gigabytes of data = transfer and carbon. I am looking for somebody who can actually prove = anything to me to contrast this argument, and I have been looking hard = for nearly 3 years now.. I acknowledge that it=E2=80=99s easier for = accounting firms to correlate carbon to data transfer, because Network = economics account for money in terms of data transfer. But there is no = relation between carbon and GB.

In fact, = counterintuitively there is a stronger argument that using =E2=80=9Cmore = data=E2=80=9D commercially drives a swift migration to new technologies, = which almost invariably, save energy once utilisation passes an = equivalent point on the legacy network.  Newer IT is almost = invariably more efficient.

 Obviously this = does not consider embedded emissions in the rollout and physical = deployment of such networks. However, in carbon intensity terms - and I = am conjecturing here - if you took all the internet kit and burned it = and turned it into energy, the energy release would probably (i would = guess) run the Internet for a few weeks at best, so the operational = energy is a much much more important element to consider in = sustainability terms in the long run in my = opinion.

#catamongpigeons = :)


On 9 May 2023, at 03:35, Daniel Schien = <Daniel.Schien@bristol.ac.uk> = wrote:

=EF=BB=BF
Sadly the paper draws the wrong conclusions - it makes the same mistake = of Obringer et al. in "The overlooked environmental footprint of = increasing Internet use. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, = 2021" who first develop an attributional estimate of the monthly carbon footprint of a single user "their monthly carbon = footprint would be 9.4 kg CO2e." and then claim that "Simply turning off = the video, however, would reduce the monthly emissions to 377 g CO2e.=E2=80= =9D - which is not the case, because routers are notoriously inelastic.

Tabaeiaghdaei et al. combine a model of the dynamic carbon intensity = (very small)
<image.png>

with an attributional model of the idle power consumption (dominating = power consumption by far)
<image.png>


They then wrongly apply it to bitrates from a number of content = providers to estimate savings. Because the idle energy consumption is = fix - the below estimates of savings do not actually materialise.

<image.png>


These accounting mistakes just don't stop. Reviewers are not aware of it = and let them pass. It also looks really impressive that Netflix network = footprint could be reduced by 68%.

Daniel Schien

Senior Lecturer in Computer Science
Department of Computer = Science | University of = Bristol
Submit software engineering project ideas for = 2022
bris.ac.uk/software-engineering
Watch: https://youtu.be/lU-ZsBDFWDI
Merchant Venturers Building , = Woodland Rd Bristol, BS8 1UB

From: E-impact = <e-impact-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Dom Robinson = <dom@id3as.co.uk>
Sent: 04 May 2023 11:34
To: e-impact@ietf.org <e-impact@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [E-impact] Carbon-Intelligent Global Routing in = Path-Aware Networks
 
Very interesting -thanks Hesham.


On 4 May 2023, at 11:14, Hesham ElBakoury = <helbakoury@gmail.com> wrote:

=EF=BB=BF
This is a new SCION paper which uses SCION path aware = architecture to estimate and disseminate carbon intensity of = inter-domain paths.  You can access the paper here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=3Dhttps://netse= c.ethz.ch/publications/papers/green_routing2023.pdf&hl=3Den&sa=3DX= &d=3D2221193519881579352&ei=3DL39TZNbNL4HBsQKHg4Mw&scisig=3DAG= lGAw8bvu6JoiUYgq86kLYpZ0W1&oi=3Dscholaralrt&hist=3DLiEm55wAAAAJ:62= 97799576989356312:AGlGAw-I9fbYdpGr-eDV-oh3lITV&html=3D&pos=3D2&= ;folt=3Drel&fols=3D

SCION team designed CIRo, a system for forecasting the = carbon intensity of inter-domain paths and disseminating them across the = Internet. Using SCION code base the team implemented CIRo PoC to = demonstrate the potential of CIRo for reducing the carbon footprint of endpoints and end domains through large-scale = simulations. CIRo PoC  shows that it can "reduce the carbon = intensity of communications by at least 47% for half of the domain pairs = and the carbon footprint of Internet usage by at least 50% for
87% of end domain."

Hesham

--
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-impac= t

= --Apple-Mail=_0651E302-8CEF-4992-99F4-B3129DAA544A--