diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9547.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc9547.txt | 1196 |
1 files changed, 1196 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9547.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9547.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..44d4cee --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9547.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1196 @@ + + + + +Internet Architecture Board (IAB) J. Arkko +Request for Comments: 9547 C. S. Perkins +Category: Informational S. Krishnan +ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2024 + + + Report from the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impact of Internet + Applications and Systems, 2022 + +Abstract + + Internet communications and applications have both environmental + costs and benefits. The IAB ran an online workshop in December 2022 + to explore and understand these impacts. + + The role of the workshop was to discuss the impacts and the evolving + industry needs, and to identify areas for improvements and future + work. A key goal of the workshop was to call further attention to + the topic and bring together a diverse stakeholder community to + discuss these issues. + + Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the + workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are + those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB + views and positions. + +Status of This Memo + + This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is + published for informational purposes. + + This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) + and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to + provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the + Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for + publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet + Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9547. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 1.1. About the Contents of This Workshop Report + 2. Scope + 2.1. Practical Arrangements + 3. Workshop Topics and Discussion + 3.1. The Big Picture + 3.2. Understanding the Impacts + 3.3. Improvements + 3.4. Next Steps + 3.4.1. Overall Strategy + 3.4.2. Improvements + 3.4.3. Actions + 4. Feedback + 5. Security Considerations + 6. IANA Considerations + 7. Position Papers + 8. Program Committee + 9. Informative References + Appendix A. Workshop Participants + IAB Members at the Time of Approval + Acknowledgments + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + The IAB ran an online workshop in December 2022 to explore and + understand the environmental impacts of the Internet. + + The context for the workshop was that Internet communications and + applications have both environmental costs and benefits. In the + positive direction, they can reduce the environmental impact of our + society, for instance, by allowing virtual interaction to replace + physical travel. On the other hand, the Internet can equally well + act as an enabler for increasing physical goods consumption, for + instance, by facilitating commerce. + + Beyond the effects associated with its use, Internet applications do + not come for free either. The Internet runs on systems that require + energy and raw materials to manufacture and operate. While the + environmental benefits of the Internet may certainly outweigh this + use of resources in many cases, it is incumbent on the Internet + industry to ensure that this use of resources is minimized and + optimized. In many cases, this is already an economic necessity due + to operational costs. And because many consumers, businesses, and + civil societies care deeply about the environmental impact of the + services and technologies they use, there is also a clear demand for + providing Internet services with minimal environmental impact. + + The role of the workshop was to discuss the Internet's environmental + impact and the evolving industry needs, and to identify areas for + improvements and future work. A key goal of the workshop was to call + further attention to the topic and bring together a diverse + stakeholder community to discuss these issues. This report + summarizes the workshop inputs and discussions. + + The workshop drew many position paper submissions. Of these, 26 were + accepted and published to stimulate discussion. There were active + discussions both in the meeting and on the workshop mailing list with + 73 participants altogether. + + Perhaps the main overriding observation is how much interest and + urgency there is on this topic, among engineers, researchers, and + businesses. + + The workshop discussions and conclusions are covered in Section 3. + The position papers and links to recordings of workshop sessions can + be found at <https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/e-impact/>. + Presentations and related materials from the workshop are available + from the IETF Datatracker + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/eimpactws/meetings/>. + + After the workshop, the IETF will continue to discuss general topics + and specific proposals on a new mailing list, the e-impact list + (e-impact@ietf.org). You can subscribe to this list at + <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact>. + + The IETF is discussing improvements for some specific situations, + such as the Time-Variant Routing (TVR) proposal, which can help + optimize connectivity with systems that are periodically on or + reachable (such as satellites). We expect more proposals in the + future. + +1.1. About the Contents of This Workshop Report + + The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops + designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the + Internet, and to suggest future directions for the Internet + architecture. This long-term planning function of the IAB is + complementary to the ongoing engineering efforts performed by working + groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). + + Furthermore, the content of this report comes from presentations + given by workshop participants and notes taken during the + discussions, without interpretation or validation. Thus, the content + of this report follows the flow and dialog of the workshop and + documents a few next steps and actions, but it does not attempt to + determine or record consensus on these. + +2. Scope + + Environmental impact assessments and improvements are broad topics, + ranging from technical questions to economics, business decisions, + and policies. + + The technical, standards, and research communities can help ensure + that we have a sufficient understanding of the environmental impact + of the Internet and its applications. They can also help to design + the right tools to continue to build and improve all aspects of the + Internet, such as addressing new functional needs, easing of + operations, improving performance and/or efficiency, or reducing + environmental impacts in other ways. + + The following topics were expected to be discussed at the workshop: + + * The direct environmental impacts of the Internet, including but + not limited to energy usage by Internet systems themselves (the + network equipment along with the associated power and cooling + infrastructure), energy usage of the relevant end-user devices, + resources needed for manufacturing the associated devices, or the + environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of Internet + systems. This included discussion about the breakdown of those + impacts across different system components and operations and + predictions about the potential future trends for these impacts + based on changed usage patterns and emerging technologies. + + * The indirect environmental impacts of the Internet, i.e., its + effects on society through enabling communications, virtual + services, or global commerce. + + * Sharing information about relevant measurement metrics and data + and identifying the need for additional metrics or measurements. + + * The need for improvements or new associated functionality. + + * Sharing information about the societal, business, and regulatory + situation to help identify areas of opportunity. + + * Identifying areas where further technical work would be most + impactful. + + * Specific improvement proposals. + + * Past work in the IETF, IRTF, and IAB in this area and the status + of such work. + + * Observed user behaviors as they relate to environmental impacts. + + We expected the workshop discussions to connect analysis of the + issues (e.g., scale of energy consumption or carbon footprint) to + industry needs (e.g., deployment opportunities) and solutions. + + Business and societal policy questions were in scope only insofar as + they informed the workshop participants about the context we are in, + but what those policies should be was not for the workshop to decide + or even extensively discuss. The scope also excluded how the + technical community works and meets, such as the question of in- + person or hybrid meetings (although it should be noted that the + workshop itself was run as an online meeting). + +2.1. Practical Arrangements + + The IAB discussed a potential workshop in this area during its May + 2022 retreat. A call for position papers went out in August 2022. + Position papers were to be submitted by end of October, a deadline + that was later extended by one week. + + As noted, the workshop itself was run as an online meeting, with four + half-day sessions complemented by email discussions and the position + papers submitted by the participants. + + All in all, 73 people participated in at least one session in the + workshop. Participation was by invitation only, based on the + position paper submissions. + + Every submission was read by at least three members of the program + committee, and acceptance decisions were communicated back to the + authors. Review comments were provided to authors for information, + and some of the papers were revised before the workshop. + + The program committee decided that due to interest and differing + areas of expertise, all co-authors were to be invited; most of them + attended. The program committee also invited a handful of additional + participants that were seen as providing valuable input. Similarly, + as has been done in previous IAB workshops, the program committee + members and members of the IAB and IESG were offered an opportunity + to participate, even in cases where they did not submit a position + paper. + + The IETF Secretariat and communications staff provided practical + support during the process, sending announcements, maintaining the + workshop web page with position papers, setting up mailing lists, + tracking submissions, helping with blog article submissions, and so + on. + +3. Workshop Topics and Discussion + + The meeting part of the workshop was divided into four sessions: + + * The first session was about the big picture and relationships + between different aspects of sustainability (see Section 3.1). + + * The second session focused on what we know and do not know and how + we can measure environmental impacts (see Section 3.2). + + * The third session was about potential improvements (see + Section 3.3). + + * The final fourth session was about conclusions and next steps (see + Section 3.4). + +3.1. The Big Picture + + This session was about the big picture and how the Internet + influences the rest of the society. We also spoke about the goals of + the workshop. + + The session began with a discussion about what is overall involved in + this topic. We also looked at how the IETF has approached this topic + in the past. + + The discussions also expressed the urgency of action and the + importance of continuous improvement, i.e., an incremental change + every year is needed for larger savings at the end of the decade. We + continued to talk about the need to recognize how climate change + impacts different communities in the world, often unfairly. Finally, + we focused on the need to be aware of carbon footprint rather than + pure energy consumption -- carbon intensity of energy sources varies. + + The starting observation from this session was that the issue is much + bigger than Internet technology alone. The issue influences all + parts of society, even matters such as (in)equality, externalized + costs, and justice. Another key observation was that improvements + come in many forms; there is no silver bullet. The opportunity to + bring people with different backgrounds together helped us see how we + approach the topic from different angles -- none of them wrong, but + also none of them are the sole angle to focus on either. Only the + combined effects of complementary efforts can provide the required + level of changes. + + Some of the useful tools for approaching the issue of course included + technical solutions but also solidarity, aiming for sufficiency, and + awareness. It is important to not stand still waiting for the + perfect solution. Renewable energy and carbon awareness were seen as + a part of the solution but not sufficient by themselves. + + As an example demonstration of the diversity of angles and + improvements relating to environmental issues, the figure below + classifies the areas that workshop position papers fell on: + + +---- Actors & organizations + | +---- Avoidance + +---- Benefits to other fields | + | +---- User behavior + +---- Society, awareness, & | + | justice +---- Implementation + | | + Workshop -+- Improvements ------------------+ + | | + | Understanding & | +---- Data plane + +---- Measurements | | + | Protocols --+---- Routing + | | + +---- Energy +---- Edge cloud + | | + +---- Carbon +---- Mobile + | + +---- Metrics + | + +---- Other + + Figure 1: Position Paper Submission Topics + + Some of the goals for the IETF should include: + + * Connecting the IETF with others. Given that the issue is broad, + it is difficult for one Standards Development Organization (SDO) + alone to make a significant impact or even have the full picture. + Working in collaboration with others is necessary, and + understanding the situation beyond technology will be needed. + + * Continuous improvement. It is important that the IETF (among + others) set itself on a continuous improvement cycle. No single + improvement will change the overall situation sufficiently, but + over a longer period of time, even smaller changes every year will + result in larger improvements. + + * Finding the right targets for improvements in the Internet. These + should perhaps not be solely defined by larger speeds or bigger + capacity but rather increased usefulness to society and declining + emissions from the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) + sector. + + * Specifying what research needs to be done, i.e., where additional + knowledge would allow us to find better improvements. For + instance, not enough is known about environmental impacts beyond + energy, such as natural resources used for manufacturing or the + use of water. Carbon awareness and measurements across domains + are also poorly understood today. And business model impacts -- + such as the role of advertising on the Internet's carbon footprint + -- deserve more study. + +3.2. Understanding the Impacts + + The second session focused on what we know and do not know and how we + can measure environmental impacts. + + The initial presentation focused on narrowing down the lower and + upper limits of the energy use of the Internet and putting some + common but erroneous claims into context. There was also discussion + regarding the energy consumption of the ICT sector and how it + compares to some other selected industries, such as aviation. + + Dwelling deeper into the energy consumption and the carbon footprint + of the ICT sector, there was discussion regarding how the impact was + split amongst the networks, data centers, and user devices (with the + user devices appearing to contribute to the largest fraction of + impact). Also, while a lot of the energy-consumption-related studies + and discussions have been focused on data centers, some studies + suggested that data center energy usage is still a small fraction of + energy use as compared to residential and commercial buildings. + + There were also further discussions during both the presentations and + in the hallway chats regarding the press and media coverage of the + potential environment technologies. The overall sense of the + participants seemed to be that there was a lot of sensational + headlines, but they were not really backed by measurements done by + the industry and academia and were fraught with errors. Some of + these media reports were off by quite a bit, sometimes even by an + order of magnitude (e.g., confusing MBps vs. Mbps in calculations). + The potential harm of having widely circulating misinformation was + noted; it can hinder realistic efforts to reduce carbon emissions. + + In the rest of the session, we looked at both additional data + collected from the operators as well as factors that -- depending on + circumstances -- may drive energy consumption. For instance, these + include peak capacity and energy proportionality. + + If energy consumption is minimally affected by an offered load, the + ratio of peak capacity to typical usage becomes a critical factor in + energy consumption. On the other hand, systems with energy + proportionality scale their resource and energy consumption more + dynamically based on the offered load. The lack of energy + proportionality in many parts of the network infrastructure was + noted, along with the potential gains if it can be improved. + + There were also observations that showed that the energy consumption + grew as a step function when the peak capacity was reached (even + instantaneously), and additional capacity was built up by performing + network upgrades to handle these new peaks. This resulted in an + overall higher baseline energy consumption, even when the average + demand did not change that much. Thus, the ability to shift load to + reduce peak demand was highlighted as a potential way to delay + increases in consumption when energy proportionality is lacking. + +3.3. Improvements + + The third session was about potential improvements. + + As noted earlier, there are many different types of improvements. In + the discussion, we focused mostly on protocol aspects and looked at + metrics, telemetry, routing, multicast, and data encoding formats. + + The two initial presentations focused on metrics and telemetry with + the premise that visibility is a very important first step + (paraphrasing Peter Drucker's mantra of "You cannot improve what you + don't measure"). There was a discussion of the scopes of emissions, + and it seemed that, from a networking vendor perspective, while + directly controlled emissions and emissions from purchased energy are + easily measurable, emissions from across the entire value chain can + be much larger. Thus, it seemed important that networking vendors + put effort into helping their customers measure and mitigate their + environmental impact as well. The need for standardized metrics was + very clear, as it helps avoid proprietary, redundant, and even + contradictory metrics across vendors. + + The initial and the near-term focus was related to metrics and + techniques related to energy consumption of the networking devices + themselves, while the longer term focus can go into topics much + further removed from the IETF circular design, such as packaging, in + order to form a more holistic picture. The overall feeling was that + the topics of metrics, telemetry, and management are quite specific + and could be targets to be worked on in the IETF in the near term. + + The next part of the discussion highlighted the need to understand + the trade-offs involved in changing forwarding decisions -- such as + increased jitter and stretch. Jitter is about delay fluctuation + between packets in a stream [RFC4689]. Stretch is defined as the + difference between the absolute shortest path traffic could take + through the network and the path the traffic actually takes + [RFC7980]. Impacts on jitter and stretch point to the need for + careful design and analysis of improvements from a system perspective + to ensure that the intended effect is indeed reached across the + entire system and is not only a local optimum. + + We also talked about the potentially significant impact, provided the + network exhibits energy proportionality, of using efficient binary + formats instead of textual representations when carrying data in + protocols. This is something that can be adopted relatively easily + in new protocols as they are developed. Indeed, some recently + finished protocols, such as HTTP/2, have already chosen to use this + technique [RFC9113]. General-purpose binary formats, such as Concise + Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949], are also available for + use. + + There were also some interesting discussions regarding the use of + multicast and whether it would help or hurt on the energy efficiency + of communications. There were some studies and simulations that + showed the potential gains to be had, but they were to be balanced + against some of the well-known barriers to deployment of multicast. + We also heard from a leading Content Delivery Network (CDN) operator + regarding their views on multicast and how it relates to media usage + and consumption models. The potential negative effects of multicast + in wireless and constrained networks were also discussed in hallway + conversations. Overall, the conclusion was that the use of multicast + can potentially provide some savings but only in some specific + scenarios. + + For all improvements, the importance of metrics was frequently + highlighted to ensure changes lead to a meaningful reduction in the + overall carbon footprint of systems. + +3.4. Next Steps + + The fourth and final session was about conclusions and next steps. + This section highlights some of these conclusions. + +3.4.1. Overall Strategy + + While only a few things are easy, the road ahead for making + improvements seems clear: we need to continue to improve our + understanding of the environmental impact and have a continuous cycle + of improvements that lead not just to better energy efficiency but to + reduced overall carbon emissions. The IETF can play an important + part in this process, but of course there are other aspects beyond + protocols. + + On understanding our environmental impact, the first step is better + awareness of sustainability issues in general, which helps us better + understand where our issues are. The second step is willingness to + understand in detail what the causes and relationships are within our + issues. What parts, components, or behaviors in the network cause + what kinds of impacts? An overall drive in the society to report and + improve environmental impacts can be helpful in creating a + willingness to get to this information. + + On establishing a continuous cycle of improvements, the ability to + understand where we are, making improvements, and then seeing the + impact of those improvements is of course central. But obviously the + key questions are what are the potential improvements and how can we + accelerate them? It should be noted that quick, large changes are + not likely. But a continuous stream of smaller changes can create a + large impact over a longer period of time. + + One of the key realizations from this workshop was that the problem + to be solved is very large and complex; therefore, there is no single + solution that fixes everything. There are some solutions that could + help in the near term and others that would only show benefits over + longer periods, but they are both necessary. + + One further challenge is that due to the size and complexity of the + problem, there are likely varying opinions on what Key Performance + Indicators (KPIs) need to be measured and improved. + +3.4.2. Improvements + + In looking at potential improvements, it is essential that any + associated trade-offs be understood (note that not all improvements + do indeed entail a trade-off). + + Importantly, the role of the Internet in improving other areas of + society must not be diminished. Understanding the costs and benefits + requires taking a holistic view of energy consumption, focusing not + just on the carbon footprint of the Internet but of the broader + systems in which it is used. For instance, discussion in session + three revealed how some changes might impact latency and jitter. + Given that these characteristics are important factors in how virtual + meetings are perceived by potential participants, it is important + that the performance of networks satisfy these participants at a + level such that they are willing to use them over other potentially + more environmentally harmful methods, such as travel. Focusing + solely on the carbon footprint of the Internet, or solely on the + carbon footprint of travel, risks missing the bigger picture + potential savings. + + Note that, while shifting to virtual meetings is a common example of + how the carbon footprint could be decreased, it is important to + consider different use cases, some of which may not be as obvious to + us human users as meetings are. Improvements may bring different or + even larger impacts in other situations, e.g., Internet-connected + electronics might benefit from different characteristics than human + users, e.g., with regards to support for intermittent connectivity. + + The relationships between different system components and the impact + of various detailed design choices in networks are not always + apparent. A local change in one node may have an impact in other + nodes. When considering environmental sustainability, in most cases, + the overall system impact is what counts more than local impacts. Of + course, other factors, such as device battery life and availability + of power, may result in other preferences, such as optimizing for + low-power usage of end-user devices, even at the cost of increases + elsewhere. + + In terms of useful tools for building improvements, the following + were highlighted in discussions: + + * Measures beyond protocol design, such as implementations or + renewable energy use. Not everything is about protocols. + + * Metrics, measurements, and data are very beneficial. Carbon-aware + metrics in particular would be very useful. All additional + information makes us more aware of what the environmental impacts + are, and it also enables optimization, adjustments based on + Artificial Intelligence (AI), carbon-directed computing and + networking tools, and so on. + + * It would be beneficial to be able to provide various systems a + more dynamic ability to slow down and sleep. Awareness of energy + availability and type would also allow us to employ time and place + shifting for reducing carbon impacts. + + * When we design systems, paying attention to the used data formats + may pay off significantly, as argued in [Moran]. + + * There's a new possible opportunity for deploying multicast as well + [Navarre]. + + * Designing systems for energy-constrained situations may actually + make the resulting systems work well in several environments. + +3.4.3. Actions + + The workshop discussed a number of possible actions. These actions + are not about how to take specific technical solutions forward but + rather about how to discuss the topic going forward or what technical + areas to focus on: + + * We need to continue the discussion -- not all questions are + answered. Additional discussion within the IETF will be needed. + Continuing to connect the IETF with others in society and other + SDOs around this topic is also useful. + + * It is useful to find a role and a scope for IETF work in this + area. The IETF will not develop alternative energy sources, work + on social issues, or have detailed discussions about + implementation strategies or electronics design. However, the + IETF has a role in measurement mechanisms, protocol design, and + standards -- but of course, activities in this role need to be + aware of other aspects, such as implementation strategies. + + * Increase our understanding of the environmental impacts of + Internet technologies. One discussion topic that arose during the + workshop was whether each new RFC should dedicate a section to + discuss these impacts. No conclusion was drawn about the way to + document these in RFCs, but it is clear that the IETF community + will need to understand the environmental issues better. (Perhaps + in addition to learning about the actual issues, guidelines for + analyzing protocols with regards to their impacts could be + useful.) + + * IETF activities on specific technologies are already ongoing or + starting; for example, metrics are being discussed in the Network + Management Research Group [NMRG], the Operations and Management + Area Working Group [OPSAWG], and the new Time-Variant Routing + Working Group [TVRWG]. It may also be useful to start with the + low-hanging fruits, such as: + + - Focusing on improving energy proportionality and the consequent + use of efficient data formats. + + - Avoiding crypto assets -- such as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) + and cryptocurrencies. + + - Being able to carry information that needs to be shared for the + purposes of enabling load and time shifting. + + * Help initiate research activities that address some of the issues, + such as broader gathering and sharing of measurement data, + analysis of this data, and examination of business-related issues, + such as how peering or advertising impacts sustainability. In + addition, there may be a need to look at research for specific + areas of improvements that are promising but not ready for + standards discussion. + + In summary, the goals that the IETF should have include: + + * Full understanding of the Internet's environmental impact. + + * Continuous improvement of our technology. + + * Launching research-relevant activities. + + To support these goals, the IAB has created the e-impact program + [E-IMPACT] as a venue for further discussions concerning + environmental impacts and sustainability of Internet technology. + +4. Feedback + + The organizers received generally positive feedback about the + workshop. + + One practical issue from the organizer's point of view was that, due + to the extension of the deadline, the final submissions and paper + reviews collided in part with the IETF 115 meeting. This led to it + being very difficult for the program committee and practical + organization staff to find time for the activity. We recommend + avoiding such collisions in the future. + +5. Security Considerations + + The workshop itself did not address specific security topics. Of + course, individual changes in Internet technology or operations that + influence environmental impacts may also influence security aspects. + These need to be looked at for every proposed change. + + Such influence on security may come in different forms. For + instance: + + * A mechanism that makes energy consumption information available + may be susceptible to tampering or providing false information. + For example, in [McDaniel], the author argues that economics and + history show that different players will attempt to cheat if a + benefit can be accrued by doing so, e.g., by misreporting. As a + result, sustainability measures and systems must be modeled as + systems under threat. + + * A mechanism that allows control of network elements for + optimization purposes may be misused to cause denial-of-service or + other types of attacks. + + * Avoiding the use of crypto assets where other mechanisms suffice. + + * Streamlining what data is sent may improve privacy if less + information is shared. + +6. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + +7. Position Papers + + The following position papers were submitted to the workshop: + + * Chris Adams, Stefano Salsano, Hesham ElBakoury: "Extending IPv6 to + support Carbon Aware Networking" [Adams] + + * Per Anderson, Suresh Krishnan, Jan Lindblad, Snezana Mitrovic, + Marisol Palmero, Esther Roure, Gonzalo Salgueiro: "Sustainability + Telemetry" [Anderson] + + * Jari Arkko, Nina Lövehagen, Pernilla Bergmark: "Environmental + Impacts of the Internet: Scope, Improvements, and Challenges" + [Arkko] + + * R. Bolla, R. Bruschi, F. Davoli, C. Lombardo, Beatrice Siccardi: + "6Green: Green Technologies for 5/6G Service-Based Architectures" + [Bolla] + + * Alexander Clemm, Lijun Dong, Greg Mirsky, Laurent Ciavaglia, Jeff + Tantsura, Marie-Paule Odini: "Green Networking Metrics" [ClemmA] + + * Alexander Clemm, Cedric Westphal, Jeff Tantsura, Laurent + Ciavaglia, Marie-Paule Odini, Michael Welzl: "Challenges and + Opportunities in Green Networking" [ClemmB] + + * Toerless Eckert, Mohamed Boucadair, Pascal Thubert, Jeff Tantsura: + "IETF and Energy - An Overview" [Eckert] + + * Greening of Streaming: "Tune In. Turn On. Cut Back. Finding the + optimal streaming 'default' mode to increase energy efficiency, + shift consumer expectations, and safeguard choice" [GOS] + + * Romain Jacob: "Towards a power-proportional Internet" [Jacob] + + * Fieke Jansen and Maya Richman: "Environment, internet + infrastructure, and digital rights" [Jansen] + + * Michael King, Suresh Krishnan, Carlos Pignataro, Pascal Thubert, + Eric Voit: "On Principles for a Sustainability Stack" [King] + + * Suresh Krishnan, Carlos Pignataro: "Sustainability considerations + for networking equipment" [Krishnan] + + * Jukka Manner: "Sustainability Considerations" [Manner] + + * Vesna Manojlovic: "Internet Infrastructure and Climate Justice" + [Manojlovic] + + * Mike Mattera: "Understanding the Full Emissions Impact from + Internet Traffic" [Mattera] + + * John Preuß Mattsson: "Environmental Impact of Crypto-Assets" + [Mattsson] + + * Brendan Moran, Henk Birkholz, Carsten Bormann: "CBOR is Greener + than JSON" [Moran] + + * Louis Navarre, Franoçis Michel, Olivier Bonaventure: "It Is Time + to Reconsider Multicast" [Navarre] + + * Bruce Nordman: "Applying Internet Architecture to Energy Systems" + [Nordman] + + * Alvaro Retana, Russ White, Manuel Paul: "A Framework and + Requirements for Energy Aware Control Planes" [Retana] + + * Shayna Robinson, Remy Hellstern, Mariana Diaz: "Sea Change: + Prioritizing the Environment in Internet Architecture" [Robinson] + + * Daniel Schien, Paul Shabajee, Chris Preist: "Rethinking Allocation + in High-Baseload Systems: A Demand-Proportional Network + Electricity Intensity Metric" [Schien] + + * Eve M. Schooler, Rick Taylor, Noa Zilberman, Robert Soulé, Dawn + Nafus, Rajit Manohar, Uri Cummings: "A Perspective on Carbon-aware + Networking" [Schooler] + + * Selome Kostentinos Tesfatsion, Xuejun Cai, Arif Ahmed: "End-to-end + Energy Efficiency at Service-level in Edge Cloud" [Kostentinos] + + * Pascal Thubert: "Digital Twin and Automation" [Thubert] + + * Wim Vanderbauwhede: "Frugal Computing" [Vanderbauwhede] + + * Michael Welzl, Ozgu Alay, Peyman Teymoori, Safiqul Islam: + "Reducing Green House Gas Emissions With Congestion Control" + [Welzl] + +8. Program Committee + + The program committee members were: + + * Jari Arkko, Ericsson (program committee co-chair) + + * Lars Eggert, Netapp (program committee co-chair) + + * Luis M. Contreras, Telefónica + + * Toerless Eckert, Futurewei + + * Martin Flack, Akamai + + * Mike Mattera, Akamai + + * Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow + + * Barath Raghavan, USC + + * Daniel Schien, University of Bristol + + * Eve M. Schooler, Intel + + * Rick Taylor, Ori Industries + + * Jiankang Yao, CNNIC + +9. Informative References + + [Adams] Adams, C., Salsano, S., and H. ElBakoury, "Extending IPv6 + to support Carbon Aware Networking", Position paper in the + IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet + Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [Anderson] Anderson, P., Krishnan, S., Lindblad, J., Mitrovic, S., + Palmero, M., Roure, E., and G. Salgueiro, "Sustainability + Telemetry", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, December 2022. + + [Arkko] Arkko, J., Lövehagen, N., and P. Bergmark, "Environmental + Impacts of the Internet: Scope, Improvements, and + Challenges", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, December 2022. + + [Bolla] Bolla, R., Bruschi, R., Davoli, F., Lombardo, C., and B. + Siccardi, "6Green: Green Technologies for 5/6G Service- + Based Architectures", Position paper in the IAB Workshop + on Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, December 2022. + + [ClemmA] Clemm, A., Dong, L., Mirsky, G., Ciavaglia, L., Tantsura, + J., and M. Odini, "Green Networking Metrics", Position + paper in the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of + Internet Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [ClemmB] Clemm, A., Westphal, C., Tantsura, J., Ciavaglia, L., + Odini, M., and M. Welzl, "Challenges and Opportunities in + Green Networking", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, December 2022. + + [E-IMPACT] IAB, "Environmental Impacts of Internet Technology", IAB + Program, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/eimpact>. + + [Eckert] Eckert, T., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Thubert, P., + Tantsura, J., and C. Pignataro, "An Overview of Energy- + related Effort within the IETF", Work in Progress, + Internet-Draft, draft-eckert-ietf-and-energy-overview-06, + 6 January 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ + draft-eckert-ietf-and-energy-overview-06>. + + [GOS] Greening of Streaming, "Tune In. Turn On. Cut Back. + Finding the optimal streaming 'default' mode to increase + energy efficiency, shift consumer expectations, and + safeguard choice", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, December 2022. + + [Jacob] Jacob, R., "Towards a power-proportional Internet", + Position paper in the IAB Workshop on Environmental + Impacts of Internet Applications and Systems, December + 2022. + + [Jansen] Jansen, F. and M. Richman, "Environment, internet + infrastructure, and digital rights", Position paper in the + IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet + Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [King] King, M., Krishnan, S., Pignataro, C., Thubert, P., and E. + Voit, "On Principles for a Sustainability Stack", Position + paper in the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of + Internet Applications and Systems, October 2022. + + [Kostentinos] + Tesfatsion, S., Cai, X., and A. Ahmed, "End-to-end Energy + Efficiency at Service-level in Edge Cloud", Position paper + in the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet + Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [Krishnan] Krishnan, S. and C. Pignataro, "Sustainability + considerations for networking equipment", Position paper + in the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet + Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [Manner] Manner, J., "Sustainability Considerations", Position + paper in the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of + Internet Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [Manojlovic] + Manojlovic, V., "Internet Infrastructure and Climate + Justice", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, October 2022. + + [Mattera] Mattera, M., "Understanding the Full Emissions Impact from + Internet Traffic", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, October 2022. + + [Mattsson] Preuß Mattsson, J., "Environmental Impact of Crypto- + Assets", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, December 2022. + + [McDaniel] McDaniel, P., "Sustainability is a Security Problem", ACM + SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security + (CCS), November 2022. + + [Moran] Moran, B., Birkholz, H., and C. Bormann, "CBOR is Greener + than JSON", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, October 2022. + + [Navarre] Navarre, L., Michel, F., and O. Bonaventure, "It Is Time + to Reconsider Multicast", Position paper in the IAB + Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications + and Systems, December 2022. + + [NMRG] IRTF, "Network Management Research Group NMRG", IRTF + Research Group, March 1999, + <https://www.irtf.org/nmrg.html>. + + [Nordman] Nordman, B., "Applying Internet Architecture to Energy + Systems", Position paper in the IAB Workshop on + Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications and + Systems, December 2022. + + [OPSAWG] IETF, "Operations and Management Area Working Group + (opsawg)", IETF Working Group, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/about/>. + + [Retana] Retana, A., White, R., and M. Paul, "A Framework for + Energy Aware Control Planes", Work in Progress, Internet- + Draft, draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-07, 24 August 2023, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-retana-rtgwg- + eacp-07>. + + [RFC4689] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, + "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic + Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, DOI 10.17487/RFC4689, + October 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4689>. + + [RFC7980] Behringer, M., Retana, A., White, R., and G. Huston, "A + Framework for Defining Network Complexity", RFC 7980, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7980, October 2016, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7980>. + + [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object + Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>. + + [RFC9113] Thomson, M., Ed. and C. Benfield, Ed., "HTTP/2", RFC 9113, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9113, June 2022, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9113>. + + [Robinson] Robinson, S., Hellstern, R., and M. Diaz, "Sea Change: + Prioritizing the Environment in Internet Architecture", + Position paper in the IAB Workshop on Environmental + Impacts of Internet Applications and Systems, December + 2022. + + [Schien] Schien, D., Shabajee, P., and C. Preist, "Rethinking + Allocation in High-Baseload Systems: A Demand-Proportional + Network Electricity Intensity Metric", Position paper in + the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet + Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [Schooler] Schooler, E., Taylor, R., Zilberman, N., Soulé, R., Nafus, + D., Manohar, R., and U. Cummings, "A Perspective on + Carbon-aware Networking", Position paper in the IAB + Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet Applications + and Systems, October 2022. + + [Thubert] Thubert, P., "Digital Twin and Automation", Position paper + in the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet + Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [TVRWG] IESG, "Time-Variant Routing (tvr)", IETF Working Group, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/tvr/about/>. + + [Vanderbauwhede] + Vanderbauwhede, W., "Frugal Computing", Position paper in + the IAB Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Internet + Applications and Systems, December 2022. + + [Welzl] Welzl, M., Alay, O., Teymoori, P., and S. Islam, "Reducing + Green House Gas Emissions With Congestion Control", + Position paper in the IAB Workshop on Environmental + Impacts of Internet Applications and Systems, October + 2022. + +Appendix A. Workshop Participants + + The participants who attended at least one of the four sessions were: + + * Alex Clemm + + * Ali Rezaki + + * Arif Ahmed + + * Beatrice Siccardi + + * Brendan Moran + + * Bruce Nordman + + * Carlos Pignataro + + * Carsten Bormann + + * Cedric Westphal + + * Chiara Lombardo + + * Chris Adams + + * Colin Perkins + + * Daniel Schien + + * Dawn Nafus + + * Dom Robinson + + * Eric Voit + + * Éric Vyncke + + * Esther Roure Vila + + * Eve M. Schooler + + * Fieke Jansen + + * Franco Davoli + + * Gonzalo Salgueiro + + * Greg Mirsky + + * Henk Birkholz + + * Hesham ElBakoury + + * Hosein Badran + + * Iankang Yao + + * Jan Lindblad + + * Jari Arkko + + * Jens Malmodin + + * Jiankang Yao + + * John Preuß Mattsson + + * Jukka Manner + + * Julien Maisonneuve + + * Kristin Moyer + + * Lars Eggert + + * Laurent Ciavaglia + + * Lijun Dong + + * Louis Navarre + + * Louise Krug + + * Luis M. Contreras + + * Marisol Palmero Amador + + * Martin Flack + + * Maya Richman + + * Michael Welzl + + * Mike Mattera + + * Mohamed Boucadair + + * Nina Lövehagen + + * Noa Zilberman + + * Olivier Bonaventure + + * Pascal Thubert + + * Paul Shabajee + + * Per Andersson + + * Pernilla Bergmark + + * Peyman Teymoori + + * Qin Wu + + * Remy Hellstern + + * Rick Taylor + + * Rob WIlton + + * Rob Wilton + + * Romain Jacob + + * Russ White + + * Safiqul Islam + + * Selome Kostentinos Tesfatsion + + * Shayna Robinson + + * Snezana Mitrovic + + * Stefano Salsano + + * Suresh Krishnan + + * Tirumaleswar Reddy.K + + * Toerless Eckert + + * Uri Cummings + + * Vesna Manojlovic + + * Wim Vanderbauwhede + +IAB Members at the Time of Approval + + Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was + approved for publication were: + + Dhruv Dhody + Lars Eggert + Wes Hardaker + Cullen Jennings + Mallory Knodel + Suresh Krishnan + Mirja Kühlewind + Tommy Pauly + Alvaro Retana + David Schinazi + Christopher Wood + Qin Wu + Jiankang Yao + +Acknowledgments + + Naturally, most of the credit goes to the workshop participants. + + The organizers wish to thank Cindy Morgan and Greg Wood for their + work on the practical arrangements and communications relating to the + workshop. This report was greatly enhanced by the feedback provided + on it. Thanks to Michael Welzl in particular for his detailed + review. + +Authors' Addresses + + Jari Arkko + Ericsson + Email: jari.arkko@ericsson.com + + + Colin S. Perkins + University of Glasgow + Email: csp@csperkins.org + + + Suresh Krishnan + Cisco + Email: suresh.krishnan@gmail.com |