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

[<philip.eardley@bt.com>]

I think a useful way of posing the question is something like:

What's the minimum deployment where the benefit for the party deploying
is greater than the party's cost/pain?

I think this form of the question is useful, because it encourages some
rough guesses. For instance: proxy ITRs in the core have some cost, how
much is this & therefore how widely would ivip/lisp/etc have to be
deployed before the net benefit was positive? Just some guesses within
an order of magnitude or two would be interesting. 

(Robin, this is similar to your question 8, but recognises that it may
be OK for the first deployers to get a net dis-benefit, eg they might be
subsidised. It's also less restrictive than your Qu 6, recognising that
the benefit may increase as more users adopt it, but this may be ok if
the benefit becomes positive before the deployment is too big.)

phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] On Behalf Of Robin
> Whittle
> Sent: 18 March 2008 02:27
> To: 'Routing Research Group'
> Cc: Xu Xiaohu
> Subject: Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean - 2 questions
> 
> 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

--
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