[arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric energy industry

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> I realize someone could probably make a case for putting your 
>> refrigerator on the Internet.  But, just because you can do 
>> something, doesn't mean you should do something.
> 
> "On the Internet" doesn't necessarily mean what you think. When
> 100% of homes and businesses have fixed-line Internet connectivity
> by fiber or copper, does it make sense to run more wires just for
> the meter? Of course not!
> 

It doesn't - but the Sensus setup - a setup that is INSTALLED in
utilities today - uses a wireless transmitter and the meters
have little wireless bits in them.  I think PGE said they covered
my entire city with 12 transmitters.  According to the Sensus
docs, the transmitters have IP on them.  But I can't find anything
on their website that shows the actual meters do.  (the
announcement you linked earlier does NOT indicate specifically
where the IP is put)  Given the number of subscribers in the
city it's clear the ratio between transmitters and meters is
very high, I would guess the system has the capability of several
thousand meters per transmitter.  This kind of star topology
does not lend itself to unique IPv4 at the endpoints.

While I agree with you that it makes much more sense to have the meters 
use a local ethernet connection to a shared DSL line in the home or
business, that's a technical decision, not a business one.  The
business decision is the opposite - since doing it the technically
sensible way puts the control of the meter access in the hands
of the home or business owner, and I'm sure no utility is the
least bit interested in that.  Utilities in general are already
not happy with owners having control over physical access to
the meter, due to potential for interference with the meter readers,
one of the selling points of this system is that it
removes that potential for interference.

Don't forget that business and technical reasoning is often at
odds.  For example from a technical viewpoint, it makes perfect
sense to have the battery in an Apple macbook, be user replaceable
so the user can just go to any store and buy a battery when
theirs wears out - this is how every other laptop on Earth works.

But from a business viewpoint, it makes sense to NOT have that
battery user-replaceable if your users are dumb enough to allow
you to do this, so that you can vastly overcharge your users for
replacing the battery, and funnel money to your local dealers,
that's why in the 2009 Macbook, Apple did this, it's also why
Apple did it with the iphone, ipod, etc.

> "One the Internet" might mean addressable on the IPv6 Internet
> so that they can access it via Tinc <http://tinc-vpn.org/>
> or some similar VPN system. 
> 
> Yes, I know that we do not have 100% connectivity today, but that
> is the way that things are headed. Give it another 20 years, and
> the only buildings with no fixed-line Internet connectivity in 
> North America will be the ones that are not on the electric 
> grid.
> 
>> If you can come up with an actual in-production scheme that 
>> in in service in a utility in the United States that has the 
>> meters on the public Internet, with each meter running it's 
>> own IP address, then I'll agree you have a point, otherwise I 
>> think the supposition is as ridiculous as putting your 
>> refrigerator on the Internet.
> 
> I never said that Smart Grid was more than a plan today.

No, you didn't.  But, it IS more than a plan today, today
it's installed, and IN PRODUCTION at least, in my own
home with my own utility.

> It is 
> a dangerous plan that could end up being accelerated at great 
> detriment to us in the next couple of years. On the other hand
> if we act now, we can prevent the damage and help the Smart Grid
> folks to put their effort and resources in the right technology,
> namely IPv6.
> 

And I said you need to look at what the Smart Grid people have
actually INSTALLED and HAVE RUNNING in REAL LIFE UTILITIES in
large cities, before getting worried about it.

> I make no secret about this banning policy being a premptive 
> strike to prevent a POTENTIAL future problem, not an actual
> present day problem.
> 

I think your overly focused on electric utilities and I think
targeting an industry is the wrong approach.  What makes a lot of sense 
is what Bill said, which is a ban on IPv4 address allocations for 
_embedded systems_ of any sort that do not function as publicly 
accessible Internet servers.

An electric utility that did publicly-number every meter would
easily fit that, as would a great many other hair-brained schemes
(like the IP address on the refrigerator deal) that IMHO have no
real need to even be deployed at all.

Ted