Re: [E-impact] kWh/GB should be banned and the IETF should warn against its use

[Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Brian,
You help answer one of my questions in my response to Jari's State of
Metrics email.

The other question is related to the type networks IETF is intetested in to
define these metrics.

Hesham

On Thu, May 11, 2023, 2:09 PM Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 12-May-23 02:50, Vesna Manojlovic wrote:
> > Rudolf, all,
> >
> > On 11/05/2023 12:24, Rudolf van der Berg wrote:
> >> kWh/GB is one of the most misleading and scientifically incorrect
> >> ways of describing the energy use of networks.
> >
> > What is a better way to describe the energy use?
>
> I very much doubt that there is a simple answer to that. Lars ask for
> metrics (plural) and that is probably the right question.
>
> For example, for a given technology, we could ask: what is the ratio
> between energy consumed when doing nothing and energy consumed when
> operating at full capacity? How do we maximize that ratio?
>
> For a given protocol, we could ask: what is the minimum rate of keep-alives
> for acceptable performance?
>
> It gets more complicated when you consider (for example) compression.
> Does compression (for a given protocol) save more energy during
> transmission
> than it costs during compression and decompression at each end?
>
> How does an encoding like CBOR compare to traditional TLVs, considering
> both energy for transmission and energy for encoding and decoding?
> How much energy does SCHC save?
>
> (Did 6LOWPAN, LPWAN or ROLL already analyse such questions?)
>
> > And, more importantly, how are we going to decrease the energy use?
>
> We, the IETF, need some design guidelines for our protocols. And we
> should stick to that and not try to discuss more general aspects,
> because that will get us nowhere, IMHO.
>
>      Brian
>
> > Because: there are many recommendations, and even regulations, to do so:
> >
> > https://www.iea.org/reports/data-centres-and-data-transmission-networks
> >
> > "ICT companies should set ambitious efficiency and CO2 emission targets
> > and implement concrete measures to track progress and achieve these
> > goals. This includes alignment with the ICT industry’s science-based
> > target to reduce GHG emissions by 45% between 2020 and 2030.  "
> >
> > The same source (International Energy Agency) shows growth in global ICT
> > energy usage, despite the efficiency gains. (see attached)
> >
> >
> >
> > And ITU recommended in 2020 to “reduce ICT GHG emissions by 45% by 2030”
> >
> https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/PR04-2020-ICT-industry-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-45-percent-by-2030.aspx
> >
> > So, may I suggest that we focus on how to achieve these goals?
> >
> > And furthermore, it might NOT be possible to "reduce emissions while
> > keeping the same quality of service" -- and my position is that it is
> > more important to reduce the emissions, even if that means _planned_
> > lowering of the quality of service -- to avoid worse consequences in the
> > future, or in the other part of the world.
> >
> >
> > Vesna
> >
> >
> --
> E-impact mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact
>