Toerless, On 26-Jul-19 23:43, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:14:00PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Toerless, >> >> This thread is not about meetings. > > Eliots tread starter certainly was. > >> It's about protocol design and operational recommendations. After all, the Internet is directly responsible for several % of world energy consumption. The exact value is still debatable: https://digital-me-up.com/2019/05/17/invisible-pollution-of-internet/ > > The Internet is not responsible for the humunguous amount of energy burn > in DC , bitcoin proof of work or end-user equipment. Correct, in a strict sense, but the Internet caused all that to exist, and IETF protocols are used extensively inside the racks. Same goes for the DCs that support CDNs. I don't think we can get off the hook so easily, but there is certainly no clear boundary between Internet and non-Internet. Of course this is one reason why the published estimates of the "Internet" energy consumption vary so widely. Brian > Thats like saying > that streets are responsible for Hummer and Trucks gasoline consumption and > waste of human time in commute traffic. Sure, the Internet is the > enabler, but its in the nature of the economy that enablers never only > enable good things. How about we get rid of money first, because thats > responsible for financing all wars, much more so than the Internet. > > Protocol design and operational recommendations too would have little > impact to reducing power consumption compared to HW-design level > improvements. > > Cheers > Toerless > >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> On 26-Jul-19 16:10, Toerless Eckert wrote: >>> This threads mails on CO2 and climate change are somewhat pythonesque to me... >>> >>> The IETF trying to shame itself about 3 meetings of 1000 people a year >>> while its product, the Internet has been the biggest reducer of energy >>> that i could think of in comparison of equivalent alternatives. >>> For the whole planet for the last few decades. >>> >>> Email/online-group-communications vs. transporting physical equivalents, >>> video conferencing, Home office, Telecommuning vs. train, plane automobiles >>> and ships ? Telemedicine, digitalization as opposed to all the paper economy >>> overhead, remote telemetry, industrial operations instead of shipping people, ... ??? >>> >>> Do we like all the excesses (IP) networks are used for ? Of couse not. >>> Should we continue to improve ? Sure! Should we eat more of our own dog food >>> (e.g.: virtual meetings) ? absolutely. But should we feel ashamed about the >>> limited transportation required to create the Internet standardization ? >>> Try to come up with any metric in which that would make sense. Show me any >>> other standards body where an equal or larger part of work gets done with >>> such a low-power mechanism as ASCII emails. >>> >>> IETF travel is not part of this problem. Its been a key part of developing and applying >>> the solution for a long time. >>> >>> >
