Re: [E-impact] [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Dom Robinson <[e-mail]>]

George - you make some good points very well.

I am simply unconvinced there is substantive
protocol work in energy burden to be done in IETF protocol space at
this time.

I have to say I agree.

As an influencing discussion, e-impact is hugely valuable.

As an intermediary between layers 1/2 and layer 4 (where all the energy is consumed) IP can already carry information (as an ‘application’) that leads to energy saving infrastructure and workload management. In this regard it already does the job perfectly!

But should a data routing protocol confuse its purpose by routing based on its own ‘awareness’ of energy? I think that adds a burden to IP that would weaken it and be out of scope. 

It risks becoming ‘for the sake of it’ rather than because it is really improving the protocol IMHO. 

I think better to continue to focus on how the physical layers and link layers are efficient, and the application layer has information to steer decisions.

l3 routing should be routing, and not try to scope creep into application / infrastructure. It should stick to the end to end principle and leave the ends to decide on energy actions, while facilitating the data exchange.

IPs role is hugely important, but it needs to remain benign else it will become a political tool. Energy information becoming a component of routing data looks like a cyberattack waiting to happen to me. 

BGP tables going wrong causes chaos, but generally ‘only’ impact data access. A DDoS attack on our energy using IP networks could cause real-world problems with much deeper consequences than ‘some data loss’. 

-- 

Dom Robinson

http://www.id3as.co.uk/" class="" rel="nofollow">www.id3as.co.uk 

http://www.greeningofstreaming.org/" class="" rel="nofollow">www.greeningofstreaming.org 

http://uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson" class="" rel="nofollow">uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson

Meet >> https://calendly.com/id3as" class="" rel="nofollow">https://calendly.com/id3as 

On 26 Mar 2024, at 02:31, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:

Without wanting to push too hard, I would personally push back on
E-impact becoming a WG or having any solidity beyond an experimental
ongoing activity. I am simply unconvinced there is substantive
protocol work in energy burden to be done in IETF protocol space at
this time.

* I absolutely believe there is an energy impact issue in DC, in long
distance communications and maintenance of RF carrier, for the IEEE,
for 3GPP, for economies with unreliable power facing the question to
house a CDN or long-line it to somewhere else. These problems lie in
other people's standards bodies.

* I absolutely do believe we can theorise physical and link layer
protocol changes which reduce energy burdens (in many cases with cost,
like no 0RTT responses because we have to re-establish link) -And that
things like delay tolerant networking or 6LOWPAN go into this space
sometimes.

* I also absolutely do believe there may in future be clearer drive to
do work on energy in IETF, in protocol design for DC or other contexts
where it has to be exposed through the protocol stack to the
application. Therefore I can say there COULD be work to be done here,
in the future.

About as far as I would go right now is a problem statement. And, a
watch-and-review status.

I'm not in charge here and I don't have some magic veto card. If
people wanted to continue, I wouldn't oppose a list being hosted, but
I would be uncomfortable with positions being taken in public implying
the IETF or the IAB have substantive work to do here: I don't see it.

Maybe the IAB differs.

-G

--
E-impact mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact