Subject: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction: Self-deployment

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:10:58 +0000

Hi Noel,

Thanks again for another well-written document.

However, in Section 2.3, the term "self-deployment" may not be entirely accurate. If a technology were truly "self-deploying", nobody would have to do anything to deploy it. It would just deploy itself in your network, whether you want it or not ;-)

I think you are trying to say that the economic benefits of LISP are so compelling that operators will deploy it of their own accord. Hence, there is no need for anybody (e.g., the IETF, network operator groups) to encourage individual operators to deploy. Am I reading this section correctly?

If so, is such a statement required, or even appropriate in an IETF document?

--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 11:08:06 -0500 (EST)

> From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>

    > Thanks again for another well-written document.

Thank you so much for those very kind words..

I do hope to improve it a little more, once I get back to work on them, once
things quiet down in the new year.

    > in Section 2.3, the term "self-deployment" may not be entirely
    > accurate. ... I think you are trying to say that the economic benefits
    > of LISP are so compelling that operators will deploy it of their own
    > accord. Hence, there is no need for anybody (e.g., the IETF, network
    > operator groups) to encourage individual operators to deploy. Am I
    > reading this section correctly?

Yes, pretty much; it means omething very close to that, yes. What I had in the
back of my mind was the early days of the Web, when it was so useful, and so
easy to add, that it just seemed to deploy itself (and at a high rate of
knots, too).

Of course, when you actually look at what is happening, it is (as you say)
that the benefits are large compared to the costs (as was true of the Web
deployment).

I cheerfully admit that the term 'self-deployment' is perhapsa not the best,
and if you (or anyone) has a superior alternative I will happily substitute
it.

    > If so, is such a statement required, or even appropriate in an IETF

Well, the reason I mention it, and think it worth mentioning, is that that
concept/goal had a great impact on the design.

I think we've all come to realize that anyone (well, almost anyone reasonably
sharp :-) can do a good design, but designing something that will actually
succeed in making it out into large-scale deployment in today's enormous
network is a far steeper challenge.

Having that in mind is not just a major goal, but also impacts the design in a
myriad ways (e.g. the encapsulation, to name one off the top of my head).  So
to really understand many of the design choices (e.g. the whole basic
architecture, with its orientation around site edge devices [at least, in the
early stages], as opposed to the approach used in some other identity/location
separation schemes, where individual hosts are the focus), one has to keep in
mind that that was a main goal.

So, yes, I do think we need to say something about this. And even if _broad_
economic considerations haven't been prominent in the IETF before, perhaps
they should have been?

Now, perhaps the text could use some tweaking, to make sure that it stays
within appropriate bounds (without consulting it, I don't recall exactly what
it says)?

And now I have to go lie down - I forgot to turn on the bedroom humidifier
last night, and as a result I have a sinus headache! :-)

	Noel