Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean - 2 questions

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Here is a better attempt at the two different questions which I think
different people are asking regarding "incremental deployment".

Joel Halpern wrote (msg 833):

> One small aspect that I think I am seeing here is the same words 
> ("incrementally deployable") being used to describe two different 
> concepts. I may be confused, but it looks to me like:
>
> (1) Deployable incrementally without disruption: 
>
>       This means that a portion of the net (host, site ISP, 
>       whatever) can deploy the system without losing capability 
>       or connectivity. A flag day is not necessary in order to 
>       get the system operational.
>
> (2) Deployment incremental incentives: 
>
>       This sounds like what Robin is asking for, and is related 
>       to a bunch of work I have seen from folks like Dr. Odlyzko 
>       on the economic incentives that are needed to drive deployment.
>       It includes analysis of issues like when do folks need 
>       positive return on new technologies to cause them to deploy.
>
> They are both valid concerns. But I think they are two different 
> dimensions.

OK.  (1) means there is presumably some net positive incentive, without
requiring everyone else to adopt the system.  However, this doesn't
distinguish what I am looking for.

(2) mentions some of what I am seeking, but is not a complete statement.

I think the question Tony is asking regarding "incremental deployment":

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00816.html

is something like:

  (3)  Can the technology be introduced one host at a time, one
       network at at time etc. without disrupting other networks
       - and produce some benefits for those who adopt it?

This rules out any technology which requires total (or at least very
widespread) adoption before it becomes useful to anyone.  (I think the
term "flag day" relates to somehow forcing or inducing everyone to
adopt the technology all at once, because that is the only way it could
produce any net benefits.)

Here are two roughly equivalent questions I ask:

  (4)  Could the technology achieve widespread adoption without some
       kind of "jump start", in which a large proportion (or all)
       of the hosts, networks etc. were somehow made to adopt it?

  (5)  Is the technology likely to be widely or completely adopted
       purely due to the immediate benefits adoptors receive?  
       (That is no external inducements, forcible deployment etc.
       and assuming the technology has the potential to be useful
       to everyone.)

This leads to further questions, which get down to the guts of things:

  (6)  Do the benefits to each early adoptor depend on the proportion
       of other users who have adopted it?

If the answer to this is "yes" then I would say the technology is not
"incrementally deployable".  For instance, IPv6 and LISP without Proxy
Tunnel Routers (PTRs).

The question which distinguishes my notion of "incrementally deployable" is:

  (7)  Does the technology provide full, or at least highly substantial
       benefits to early adoptors, irrespective of how many other 
       people (hosts, networks etc.) adopt it?

If the answer is "yes", then I would say the technology is incrementally
adoptable, and the answers for this technologies to the other questions
are (4) Yes, (5) Yes and (6) No.

For instance Ivip or LISP with PTRs.


Question (3) doesn't ask what I am asking with (4), (5) or (6).

I think the two most distilled forms of questions which represent
Tony's view and mine are something like:

  (8)  Can the technology be deployed incrementally (not all at once,
       starting with one user, two, 1000, 2000 etc.), generating at
       least some positive benefit for those who make the effort and
       pay the expense of adoption?  

This means that the technology doesn't need to be ubiquitously adopted
to provide at least some benefit, and that any disruption it causes is
less than whatever benefit it provides.

My guess is that (8) is what Tony is asking.

My use of the term "incrementally deployable" is actually shorthand for
something more involved:

  (9)  Is the technology fully or widely deployable in a purely 
       incremental fashion?  

For this to be true, the answer to (6) would have to be "yes".

  - Robin


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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