In my opinion as an SP, a ships in the night approach only works when there is (speaking broadly) an economic case for the deployment. I.e. Motivation to use the new protocol. If we can find a solution that benefits the end sites / users as well as the network providers, then a ships in the night deployment model is ok, but otherwise it is not ok.
(For example, if we find 1 solution to solve both mobility / connection sustainability as well as provider scale, then users and SPs all benefit, there is an alignment of motivations, and no inherent tension over the deployment between user and provider.)
Just my 0.40CZK.
----- Original Message -----
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: rrg <email@example.com>
Sent: Thu Mar 22 10:21:47 2007
Subject: [RRG] On deployability
One of the issues that came up today was that of incremental
deployability. Many people felt that incremental deployability is an
absolute hard and fast requirement.
My question: suppose that we had a solution that was a ships-in-the-
night deployment? Would that suffice? Just as we are rolling out
IPv6 in parallel with IPv4, would it be sensible to roll out IPv6+ in
parallel with v6 and v4? Assume that some form of tunneling could be
used to bridge islands of connectivity.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg