Re: [E-impact] Why carbon aware routing ...

[Noa Zilberman <[e-mail]>]

Dear Vesna,

We would be happy to follow up.
However, it should be clarified that the paper clearly states that its scope is limited to intra-AS routing. Inter-AS routing is a hard problem and we didn't try to solve it in this paper.

Kind Regards,
Noa
________________________________
From: E-impact <[e-mail]> on behalf of Vesna Manojlovic <[e-mail]>
Sent: 20 February 2024 15:59
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [E-impact] Why carbon aware routing ...

Hi,

I wanted to add this since the workshop, but only got to reply this late
in the thread:

On 20/02/2024 15:44, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> Carbon aware routing is fine if all the factors play out, but as Rudolf and i tried to
> explain, there are just a lot of "ifs" that must be met before the approach can make money,

I see the added "sustainability" of routing / networking comparable to
the added security - it is not directly going to make any money for the
operator, but in the long term is is important to implement it - for
other (business, regulation, trust...) reasons.

And this analogy goes further, to address the statements such as

"every network operator gets to decide for themselves how to run their
own network"

... which is partially true - indeed, ASNs are numbering "autonomous"
networks ...

and at the same time, the *cooperation* between these networks is what
makes BGP work! The "Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security
(MANRS)", such as route-flap dampening parameters & RPKI validation are
not enforced nor forced on the operators,

each ISP can decide to NOT follow those "guidelines" (rules?),

but then they would soon find out that there are consequences, such as:
other autonomous network operators would not want to inter-connect with
them!


> But carbon aware routing is not just an accounting methods, but its serious network operations work, and a good
> amount of that introduces a risk of creating more instability in the network

exactly same arguments are valid for added security, via RPKI.

it introduces complexity, additional risks, and more instability.

and just like "sustainability", it also prevents other risks, and brings
other benefits - specially in the long term.

For these other benefits, it is worth exploring potential solutions such
as "carbon aware routing" and improving on them, as some parts of this
thread are doing.

I am curious if the original authors will be able to distill the
constructive feedback & improve on their original idea. I'd be
interested in a follow-up!

Vesna


--
Senior Community Builder, RIPE NCC
https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/

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