IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 12 May 2023 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 0A6FDC1519A4 for <e-impact@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 May 2023 01:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 YFLX4Mrk4BdO for <e-impact@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 May 2023 01:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 444CFC15107C for <e-impact@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2023 01:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:20:d280:33f:a966:f858:d6a6:6dec]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4QHhvr4wNXzDCd2; Fri, 12 May 2023 10:37:12 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1D616480-7D2C-41DD-80E9-F68F6E3F468F"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <3a34fac0-3a7e-e7c1-806f-7332cdafdbd9@ethz.ch>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 10:37:02 +0200
Cc: e-impact@ietf.org
Message-Id: <AA10EF49-A2A6-456B-82C7-B3C2ACF0C6B0@tzi.org>
References: <3a34fac0-3a7e-e7c1-806f-7332cdafdbd9@ethz.ch>
To: Romain Jacob <jacobr@ethz.ch>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20E252)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/e-impact/nj9wGhuQVAHgRwWa5rjk0hQfb1w>
Subject: Re: [E-impact] kWh/GB should be banned and the IETF should warn against its use
X-BeenThere: e-impact@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Environmental impacts of the Internet <e-impact.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/e-impact>, <mailto:e-impact-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/e-impact/>
List-Post: <mailto:e-impact@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:e-impact-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact>, <mailto:e-impact-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 08:37:21 -0000


Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> Now, the trick is that this **must not** ultimately results in increasing the capacity of existing networks! Sadly, this is what's happening today. This must stop--that's the degrowth mindset that Vesna is referring to AFAIU.

Uh oh. I’m not interested in networks that are based on the prime directive “punish all use”. I’m old enough to have experienced these networks, until they were all swept away by the Internet. 

The efficiency of the network will only improve by investments. Investments generally can only be justified by growth. The “punish all use” approach gets you stuck with X.25 and its colossal inefficiency.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status