From nobody Fri Apr 1 01:11:12 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133E412D175 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 01:11:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_REDIR=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0vR5DCZi65ZU for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 01:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3058912D0FB for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 01:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 127so11053016wmu.1 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 01:11:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:subject:to:message-id:mime-version; bh=b0VTORZTHcYCd5OqP3Vx4J2TXiZjig5tr0ILp7n/d98=; b=LPnBcijUIfBnG1aAOAT73lA5nbRxQpGagYO80nYBx6qn7ExJkqTRaKy+o3zMNEcBpc 8FhDKEGQ/MYd6Kzq7XkfNMmqMZ7cPcJ+iwXU7vvWrRzIxaqbGsXYxwrxJFVG7covp678 jJK5V9P+F9ALjMDrTpMu2oHX/DwScE5Qr/wM1Aqef+os4uQBX5sQoD9T+D3M+Ra2X89N kwZbVAakpEIP4Rdns2fZCP0DscIue0X4Dy1110MhQ4sOatxWKmaWG8SL6mDOcl5OqDK3 tPhHdCAhU5+yETCX3n0FlV4hiMWoEbFdzYr3PcMjaLmaBfivCRcjul2CReA3OS9OcD8S EAmg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:subject:to:message-id:mime-version; bh=b0VTORZTHcYCd5OqP3Vx4J2TXiZjig5tr0ILp7n/d98=; b=RqOEuOrs/BGj7U/rrr3FWHY+81s3l2KQS417benm+BcVWBNE671lAOy9JX3uaJRbv9 MmdHupFLuJuXLv5yUzcSnrB26ZA/9eq13nb7U+bd8nnKoT1dejG36+/tDTn49DhYvbjq 1oCdBxxbDxmotbM80S7+N+lfWY4JPqVG8fmKVsFWxQ3sMec3lIsumSI6TXcaQkxPQZwF tY9rJXzRGrqWNaUR950KsTdtHA5cPzoe2Ng59W5CiXEr2JRPUnjW1or7Qz5OcGJeDYr/ 59L0qxX9bB81LRN2QfRkTyRagLtv1uqrplppKb3KitR2Y+KVhY61j3psU5QP3JLrC4QH Tovg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJINqDZbihxFXthQvLa8OcXiOg7jI6qlH5JNAgcyt2CnYh8CqXktaFWMG74uG/CRRQ== X-Received: by 10.28.127.151 with SMTP id a145mr2379381wmd.53.1459498266639; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 01:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2a02:587:1804:6b00:ed33:211a:3680:5ba9? ([2a02:587:1804:6b00:ed33:211a:3680:5ba9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ks5sm12865088wjb.13.2016.04.01.01.11.05 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Apr 2016 01:11:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Ioannis Komnios Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6A503188-CF9D-49E7-992B-120B7CD6C80F" Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:11:04 +0300 To: gaia@irtf.org Message-Id: <2568F117-D150-4F09-BEF2-FB0CB9AF8AD1@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: [gaia] HUAWEI's whitepaper on digital enablement X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 08:11:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6A503188-CF9D-49E7-992B-120B7CD6C80F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii HUAWEI has released an interesting whitepaper on bridging the digital = divide to connect people and communities in India. http://bit.ly/1UEnZTR Best regards, Ioannis= --Apple-Mail=_6A503188-CF9D-49E7-992B-120B7CD6C80F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii HUAWEI has released an interesting whitepaper on bridging the digital divide to connect people and communities in India.


Best regards,
Ioannis
--Apple-Mail=_6A503188-CF9D-49E7-992B-120B7CD6C80F-- From nobody Mon Apr 4 06:22:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7472F12D16D for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:22:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isoc.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vi9md_zmkp61 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0086.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7E6212D542 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:22:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-isoc-org; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=M3ekPwcUaVVWxpzi+Ad2ac4C0vlDPO+BFn3nQh4PKY0=; b=w5pxG5iNR6A0QWntnHvR+5D9qKHVO1CSjxR6CPOY9JuYgJsoYuL4KMRSinObvGaNWn6vc9a05IuYB7V/5pCsvG/xa8yt4LexxMVVCoWFnfpy55DIwgzM4ITP0N+iQ8/hKbU4ys4e0r+wLrbhbHfBfoISoHrPxjyHTSEjlBf/Z/U= Authentication-Results: irtf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;irtf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=isoc.org; Received: from dhcp-935e.meeting.ietf.org (31.133.147.94) by BY2PR06MB2213.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.166.113.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.447.15; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:22:13 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Matthew Ford Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:22:09 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <56EC2B12.1000303@cs.tcd.ie> To: gaia X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-Originating-IP: [31.133.147.94] X-ClientProxiedBy: SN1PR07CA0018.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.162.170.156) To BY2PR06MB2213.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.166.113.151) X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: a09f1d06-503c-4c8a-4586-08d35c8c2334 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BY2PR06MB2213; 2:xAEVVh1Aw2vAEBe3Wp5+9UdnPOCHe/lSobDOJAty2d558x2YUl4IThNu4V3N6FQHLg9Hm4NQa7OphY/HbrMvUYzqmMMZaDCmMr3Th4eVuJRGNl33943PbVdck8pKX9jLFS9+DXjE7F/MhnHktqnFPXxKc03wsRpHULYLHghnDX7E8nLqP6/V3ewh0+vPRYwu; 3:hbDh8Q0+D0XfK+iW8s2jNM1RPt0rG4BGzotSlxVcy5vu63uBWzTzJyQmfax8gTKvFCjeqIBrSdpzOPMlh7+NruUxtmagQ4MvfvcCMwGr0I4zxDjp7Bm50j3kZTuftjGQ; 25:npU7pxlGN2LWFC+QjGYgqRtBIa7mXEPIpENgeNBxLo4cnZNP2BcpmalCdK9/gDsN6U9ps1qCgK0+zOI8SsfUUq7/X8NxkyAIaBoKWJllCBfZpb0h1FE4ou5GHby1W8ynw4UjxznLePs2EinswSOZt/v1sUDLxu/fDeefQUrxKgnqGnMNrOFC7FTw4K+YSX/9xJtEoJj2EABfPwab3Wr7JNQiMWvYkVaswosnerJHDvY2YROHxExb2SxEJwW2V9t3yU5duVZdao92aU0nZpzgCVcAjrnEwPjKZFRUplMpKn2VWkyW0GFy0Zb8zKj5ok8i4crn5vvA5jeRM90cRyM//od0J7RgnxmzdK/NUyLqkq8= X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR06MB2213; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BY2PR06MB2213; 20: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; 4:JMayJBezBrkB+QW83Tr/puEhepl7d55ItNzK3ZR4zfM/1tRbKzfq9OsCRDriYAeC2cRhf6037EX4NT81KMsAdirW8RxyTQFn4F8dS1Y0eP2+liMfXyWdsq0627bk6FgO1TYWM1d/f6yoqNI6bDRh87jU0g78tIVKiPUMyDnHLhp4QPx6n4uFDquFEG7nqlc11+8S7luhnqUeiN/56Cs0PEJ1yW1r0kMInRFzYTAaagZE+j3GNuzz1Ant2IDboEuEvKSZtGUJ+VY8GwuRXN9npWloc9qKb9qLJm6U2v6F8LwclOcgl0Zy0bG6+/oriUbqaenDdYXIjLBxus0lNasmfH4YFrfV0gnBBJSXiv9Xmd3gA4VC9i0SxDZWkKjxwluE X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:BY2PR06MB2213; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR06MB2213; X-Forefront-PRVS: 0902222726 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4630300001)(6009001)(2473001)(42186005)(3846002)(50466002)(77096005)(50986999)(2906002)(450100001)(50226001)(86362001)(5004730100002)(36756003)(107886002)(1096002)(76176999)(110136002)(189998001)(6116002)(19580395003)(82746002)(47776003)(5008740100001)(92566002)(66066001)(586003)(83716003)(33656002)(230783001)(23676002)(57306001)(19580405001)(81166005)(7099028)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR06MB2213; H:dhcp-935e.meeting.ietf.org; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: =?utf-8?B?MTtCWTJQUjA2TUIyMjEzOzIzOkErTzNpUzRnNmZyY3ZtYlJxVEwycmZkL2RR?= =?utf-8?B?N3hZVjl4cXQvZUlxcktDVWo1ZktsdkJvalJIK2pRSlg4ZXJ6TEF2aTdXUU9Y?= =?utf-8?B?Y0JqWkI5WWNoRWp3ZWlkMFBQOGQ4NkR5Y1VDODR1UjV6UnkrKys2L3RGR0lF?= =?utf-8?B?TG9EakNCc1ZERTlyRE5VakM4RTNSQlNVbFJjT0I0dU50S2NMWTBuSEk5RHZu?= =?utf-8?B?MGtQQTFoVjFOMzIzUzRSNEsxN1k1Y2lDRWc0cVE3YzB2RkpWUkNsY3J0Y0FY?= =?utf-8?B?Nzl2OGNLek92Mks0MDl0TUd3VzdDOEVhVTBwY0RYQnVKT0E1YW5IN2o0WjEr?= =?utf-8?B?Q2JXWU1rWTR0MUEzM2JIYmd5N0pra25McHYyd0dwKzNzSnVXS1cwVVZ2ekFj?= =?utf-8?B?VytrT3cvM1Q3RnQxV1Jja1VpME9HZENxYStXVFV5cnRHeEhkdHNKOTdXTzY4?= =?utf-8?B?RDdHOTRUbm80SFBsajFJcCtzbzgwSFE5VFJ2cVN0bmpOb1dsSjBxTTArTVJP?= =?utf-8?B?aTZoMy9XSzkweXM4K3NhVlErbjN1dmV2OEpEd2NCVkFLakZCODhiZjVOMk1y?= =?utf-8?B?bnV5a2I5K3Jjc21CTmtzNVQ3MGREcC9WUDdGaGdPTysxNnFlalg0bUVJK1BF?= =?utf-8?B?S0VBVDVnMkNnQjYwN1RjaWNPRFpSNzBMVnplRkpoaEhUTDUwNG5YS3ZUYWQ3?= =?utf-8?B?Y2ZXN29QY2ZjenZpcHJiNnlkYlNJU0lkWDhMalUrRGt3eEpra1hYRG1ZVVN5?= =?utf-8?B?T3F3V1EvL1UydG02ZHZwaXZ5RTJ3VjRJT08za3I4TTFzc0NZb0pnR25ablFa?= =?utf-8?B?RXFzREhMVWV1KzYyK0xNdjZVVmFkN0dhRHR0THFqN0ZDQ0RKVFNFMjllZkov?= =?utf-8?B?OGp0eWI0OGxKWHVvZ29JRlpsWGtYdlRJek1nSk5UY2F6TTBMUTZNNEdjNzhp?= =?utf-8?B?cnZlQXlsNmVpRStZdmVkN2FDa2E0bkdYN3luUDNLQ0NybXI2TTdxa0MyU3Rq?= =?utf-8?B?SWk5cnZIdzgyTjcxd3c0eDllQWtmclNQTE4yVVN1SjVwbVJ4dVBOSU5tQ2hk?= =?utf-8?B?emZJdGZ1SzZRNFNvdE9EaXIzbFl2QjJQeFRhSTRiY05tRkhxR1MvSDltamFI?= =?utf-8?B?Z2syK0hGUmVaZ0ZZd1cwbjAvQTlGUlZQbndUZ0NrSjJIUS9ubXVyUWkzQ1Nk?= =?utf-8?B?dTEzSll1ZTczbDlsaXRxMUxGVm5ZamJmUWFHaTYxVzN2YUJRczNvTlVIU25w?= =?utf-8?B?V1BHQURHeG9HR25qTStLZC9MVkNabkUzemhJSXhzck1xZE5UdVovVEdBWDBk?= =?utf-8?B?aG0xY1FaTm9Ka3c9PQ==?= X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BY2PR06MB2213; 5:gVTIZg7YXo+2W9hE6S5k3XVaTAfQPtHL6Uw3BdE0cT198zAAOpD9jG+O9NL9JTNuc49B/jUHA8GJANsFpnXoXNF+YI6DrHby8HK7OBeVILxYHKMUGZR1Hm7IrmrUtGehU33TNUMSy02KhRD+Bhn9Eg==; 24:rfj6yWlBDdJvOen9rP1m+Wy91E646CoRfy79jlHrAAA5qdy0cxFcwiWcntXbF94uSta7WQgpifrmhFC3P8NMPklBy8a1uT+LW8eC4YJ48QQ= SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23 SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2016 13:22:13.7051 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR06MB2213 Archived-At: Subject: [gaia] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG Poll: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:22:26 -0000 With Stephen=E2=80=99s permission, I=E2=80=99m sharing his comments on = the alternative-network-deployments draft. Mat > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: Stephen Farrell > Subject: Re: [irsg] IRSG Poll: = draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments > Date: 18 March 2016 at 13:21:38 GMT-3 > To: Matthew Ford , Internet Research Steering Group = >=20 >=20 > - 5.5: you don't mention DTN, there have been a number DTN based > testbeds, but probably none that reached any scale (so you might > be right to leave those out) >=20 > - 7.2 doesn't mention PEPs, might be worth including as > satellite was mentioned earlier (as they break stuff when > present;-) >=20 > - 7.3 omits email, which is odd and you only mention the web in > the context of proxies which is maybe even more odd; and NTP is > not really an "intranet" service, nor is IRC. Maybe this section > could do with some more work? >=20 > Missing characteristics - I didn't see much or any consideration > of the stuff below and would have thought that these issues were > important in characterising alternative networks: >=20 > - Reliability: I only see one instance of the string "reliab" > which is odd - wouldn't the reliability of these networks be a > major consideration? I mean the overall uptime mostly, and not > the packet loss rate. >=20 > - Latency: I also see only one mention of latency which is also > surprising - for some of these networks I assume that e.g. not > being fast enough to use FB, gmail or similar is a barrier. I'd > have thought that'd be an interesting characteristic too. >=20 > - Power: whether the nodes have reliable power or not would > also seem to be an interesting way to characterise 'em. >=20 From nobody Wed Apr 6 04:34:02 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4238012D1B2 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:34:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=systemli.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LvTWPMY9cASg for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.systemli.org (systemli.sh1b.ch [212.103.72.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E532A12D783 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:33:57 -0700 (PDT) To: gaia@irtf.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=systemli.org; s=default; t=1459942434; bh=ZPSOrt8N2FoRPYOh8RQsN/2Sps57gEISR62hTl65wrE=; h=To:Subject:Date:From; b=IDjB64DKOZufpYW0TnigmeRfPot9oLecjWXRrF4C7QK4eIp+pDPd7Y4WMy5LVsgJQ +r3/IH/RgAZ24An2AkX9ol+h7WCTVzrUCAP3kSSBYKHf/2rnDuHxV8TZi/1ICFFmV7 bt9bNJlhMtMcgVUyw7TQZbjs9TVi/xSrWNNDJTWQ= X-PHP-Originating-Script: 5003:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:33:54 +0200 From: future@systemli.org Message-ID: X-Sender: future@systemli.org Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:34:01 -0000 Dear authors of "Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, characterization, technologies and architectures draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-04" I'd find it useful if your draft provided a perspective towards future Alternative Networks. I am thinking of software projects that have a strong emphasis on privacy and security in their network design. After Snowden it is only a logical next step in order to meet the requirement of providing "freedom to communicate without interference, or interception" to explore and develop this kind of networks for public use. So these projects are for example * GNUnet [1] * Maidsafe [2] * Net2o [3] * Briar [4] * Sneakernet aDTN with its client Timberdoodle [5] Some of these have developed privacy aware routing algorithms and decentral naming systems for about a decade now. So in contrast to the existing Alternative Networks they provide meta-data-protection (implications of having none: [13]) by design as well as the encryption of contents. What makes them special is that some of them (the first three) are alternative internet protocol stacks which don't depend on servers or central authorites. They are fully distributed and decentralized. So they not only have the potential to provide a free and open communication means to its users but also one that backs up their civil rights by being censorship resistant and by keeping its users' communication confidental and secure - more than the current internet does. [6],[7] It is only a matter of time that they include the capability to do mesh networking. GNUnet has its own module for this: CADET [8][9]. GNUnet has been packed for OpenWRT half a year ago [10] It fits on a 8 MB Router and possibly on a 4 MB one, but still needs improvements to "dance the wifi" [11]. Maidsafe is rewritten in Rust- a security aware language. This rewrite should fit well on embedded devices. When Rust is ported to OpenWRT also Maidsafe can run its first experiments with open-wireless-networks. Net2o is built to be lightweight as well. It's developer claims that there is no reason why it should be not able to do wifi-mesh-networking. You really should mention in your draft, that community networks are severely threatend by FCC and EU regulations.[12] Proposal 1: All radio equipped hardware being sold must be open and enable alternative firmware to be deployed. The current open frequencies have a very low throughput or need an enormous effort and knowledge to use them. Wifi delivers very bad results when walls, vegetation or water is involved. Proposal 2: The most suitable (best throughput under various conditions) frequencies must be opened for public use worldwide. Under these conditions more people would be able to participate in digital communication. Streets have physical limitations. Who owns them has got a monopoly. With telecommunication infrastructure it is quite similar and the reason why for example in Germany at last the variety of telecommunication providers has declined with the result of one telecommunication provider having a monopoly and therefore can dictate the prices.(Telekom) Streets as well as communication means are vital for the well being of a society. To leave these life veins to bodies with commercial interest without ethical commitments results in a discrimination (against) the poor. In wireless communities the poor depend on the generosity of others to pay their access where it is actually the responsibilty of a country to provide free access to communication means indiscriminately to its inhabitants as it is ususal for streets and has been proven to be a good idea. Therefore Proposal 3: The digital communication infrastructure such as conductions and antennas should be mostly tax funded, free to use and in public hand. [1] https://gnunet.org/ [2] http://maidsafe.net/ [3] http://net2o.de/ [4] https://briarproject.org/ [5] https://github.com/timberdoodle/TimberdoodleApp [6] https://www.w3.org/2014/strint/papers/65.pdf [7] wiki.c3d2.de/EDN [8] https://gnunet.org/cadet [9] http://mirror.eu.oneandone.net/projects/media.ccc.de/congress/2013/workshops/30c3-WS-en-YBTI_Mesh-Bart_Polot-GNUnet_Wireless_Mesh_DHT.webm [10] https://github.com/dangowrt/gnunet-15.05 [11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEBu7u6hZSo [12] https://fsfe.org/activities/radiodirective/ [13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g00l5qBYXu8, starting from minute 4:00 Hope this helped. Kind regards Fmod Project EDN wiki.c3d2.de/EDN From nobody Thu Apr 7 00:30:59 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AD412D5A5 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:30:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=systemli.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iT31NKo3miDl for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.systemli.org (systemli.sh1b.ch [212.103.72.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10D3012D11E for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:30:52 -0700 (PDT) To: gaia@irtf.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=systemli.org; s=default; t=1460014249; bh=15INk759NMCijoppiBE89RnV6lTFeUWtqKXzElyFJb0=; h=To:Subject:Date:From:In-Reply-To:References; b=q6XIAR2PR7Y+t/g5YDCUabz4v5dqiIEqq0hV6/81YgqQjXnVVu/FBi9/hmNdYhVqF OEBH+EoThcM27tWctD0PDrvkNgHGsVacEvUjg3eAUzdMw6cycJTjHU8z+REWbBraQF Ux4m/syOBS6428MKCotQyN+T8Vd5Jo0W1ATZ2z2Q= X-PHP-Originating-Script: 5003:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:30:49 +0200 From: future@systemli.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfc0149479ad76e9f4bd4f18db1b01c@systemli.org> X-Sender: future@systemli.org Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:30:59 -0000 Hi i'd like to add some corrections: > > It is only a matter of time that they include the capability to do > mesh networking. > GNUnet has its own module for this: CADET [8][9]. Correction, i've been told today: CADET is the routing engine. GNUnet's wifi module is called dv-module. > GNUnet has been packed for OpenWRT half a year ago [10] -> the package in trunk, it's more up to date: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/master/net/gnunet/Makefile > Maidsafe is rewritten in Rust- a security aware language. This rewrite > should fit well on embedded devices of mid-range sizes with 128MB Flash Kind regards Fmod > > Project EDN > wiki.c3d2.de/EDN > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia From nobody Thu Apr 7 07:56:21 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0631712D5B8 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.867 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ieee-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Szm3EN_pZyTx for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x229.google.com (mail-qg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67D4712D809 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id f105so41064727qge.2 for ; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ma5usmGlHZ1YFPWWQ+FYe3UghynexCSJZ7QC+/f4Alw=; b=K6fPCSmbWiNs8BMaJYZBRpl9V5akI63O3nhVC0zfB/2ovN6UyxG+LEe8FV8Nlqd9ph TwU+LuTxC5PySQHFEl1J3TtAcblZOhHLPkXN3lLJiu97S9Oa7UTFSWcWL+GoXvRuKumB 0VV+ZhBcED0qvJWT1OJXp36NXc0rTcxFYBMSP7Qh6upZj22+4g6/jkjWXmOjZXvEsfK3 4Izo/RCOWq3uHm2HUFnPsOxKDZLet6en4OZt2hwxcsxxZpv6Dcnm77ctQww1XbmULTUJ NywW1UvYT2HbWBg1FdtTG3yf6z4s2ACD1tE2JXY2Ke/bR3fkoktLIM1H4I+xx6dASfQA +qwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ma5usmGlHZ1YFPWWQ+FYe3UghynexCSJZ7QC+/f4Alw=; b=Z9DTRuRHcvuZ9oaIS9fmzfnpYuQhxQWi+62cmCm8bGJm2S4MRaJFnvhVJWBHtM+I/k sMj4KBbPvhgSezCxWF8LDw+OcPzXhqAkOjsHnAjT3lGZzYT45Sqt8gJpHUXDTAMRDdGT 5II0bZW8OE2SUirIe+dsi5i1/Mg2jpAQ9DVqXQIg5pwkmb0xmswT/MWulkRF1844BnP0 kOhKOdWTLeQCZmmzuGDF0OgRYVsmL+YzuMToFSk7s+RCz+g4EtSyeSsQao9Yck/CEvrN vtL8uf2VcItyxrY5Ubc63+fJdzvdd5KWpqF1qh9Oo9xI55KGG6LtGJ33snLVFNkIoJx2 qbjw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLkscbDaxec10S/6llf5KEfEEh4/JZRjrVZKjFiFpHwf+pp9KsapqvtHFIdkL/NpgVb X-Received: by 10.140.173.133 with SMTP id t127mr4468142qht.23.1460040261319; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (189-82-161-91.user.veloxzone.com.br. [189.82.161.91]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id s67sm3503783qgs.48.2016.04.07.07.44.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:44:20 -0700 (PDT) To: Jose Saldana , gaia@irtf.org References: <035501d188e3$80ae37f0$820aa7d0$@unizar.es> From: Aldebaro Klautau Message-ID: <57067243.4050702@ieee.org> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:44:19 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <035501d188e3$80ae37f0$820aa7d0$@unizar.es> Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Aldebaro's suggestion #3 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:56:21 -0000 Dear all,

First I would like to thank the editor for the careful handling of our
suggestions. I tried to expand below the discussion on 3GPP technologies
usage in alternative networks, and provide links to relevant pointers.

Best regards,
Aldebaro

Current version:
6.2.1.2.  GSM
   GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), from ETSI, has also
   been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained
   in [Mexican], [Village], [Heimerl].

Suggestion:
6.2.1.2.  GSM
   GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), from ETSI, has also
   been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained
   in [Mexican], [Village], [Heimerl]. Open source GSM code such as
   [OpenBTS] and [OpenBSC] created an ecosystem with the participation
   of several companies [Range], [Endaga], [YateBTS] and deployments
   of voice, SMS and Internet services over alternative networks with
   an IP-based backhaul, for example. Internet navigation is restricted
   by relatively low bit rates [Osmocom].

   Benefiting from the evolution of 3rd Generation Partnership Project
   (3GPP) standards, a clear trend is the integration of 4G [IEEE-SDR],
   [YateBTS] or 5G [OpenAir] functionalities, with significant increase
   of achievable bit rates.

   Depending on factors such as the allocated frequency band, the
   adoption of licensed spectrum can have advantages over the
   eventually higher frequencies used for WiFi, with respect to signal
   propagation and, consequently, coverage. Other factors favorable
   to 3GPP technologies, especially GSM, are the low cost and energy
   consumption of handsets, which facilitate the digital inclusion of
   very low-income communities that cannot afford WiFi-enabled
   smartphones or face difficulties for charging them.

   [OpenBTS] http://openbts.org/
   [OpenBSC] http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac/
   [Range] http://www.rangenetworks.com/
   [Endaga] http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/endaga-raises-12m-help-it-bring-cellular-remote-villages/2014-12-03
   [YateBTS] http://yatebts.com/
   [Osmocom] http://osmocom.org/projects/osmopcu/wiki/GPRS_bitrates/2
   [IEEE-SDR] Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities Build Their
   Own 4G Networks, IEEE Spectrum 2015. Available at
   http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/softwaredefined-radio-will-let-communities-build-their-own-4g-networks
   [OpenAir] http://www.openairinterface.org/


On 28/03/2016 08:18, Jose Saldana wrote:

Suggestion #3

 

Current version:

   GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), from ETSI, has also

   been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained

   in [Mexican], [Village], [Heimerl].

 

Opinion:

   Item 6.2.1.2 could be expanded to include other 3GPP technologies,

   such as 3G, 4G/LTE [IEEE-SDR] and 5G [OpenAir], mentioning systems

   such as [OpenBTS], [OpenBSC] and [YateBTS]. If this is reasonable,

   I could try to expand it.

 

   [IEEE-SDR] Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities Build Their

   Own 4G Networks, IEEE Spectrum 2015. Available at

   http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/softwaredefined-radio-will-let-communities-build-their-own-4g-networks

   [OpenBTS] http://openbts.org/

   [OpenBSC] http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac/

   [YateBTS] http://yatebts.com/

   [OpenAir] http://www.openairinterface.org/

 

[JS] I think we must be as inclusive as possible. However, we have to report only those technologies that are being used in real “Alternative networks”. Those ideas that are only in a first research stage can be reported, but only as “recent efforts” or “future possibilities”.

 

If you could expand the text, including these references, and stating the current status of each of them, we can discuss it with the people in the list.

 

Thanks,

 

Jose

 

De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Aldebaro Klautau
Enviado el: viernes, 11 de marzo de 2016 11:20
Para: gaia@irtf.org
Asunto: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments

 

Hello,

I have recently joined the GAIA group and found
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03.txt very
interesting. I am not sure if this is the proper way of contributing,
but I am sending attached some suggestions.

PS: Our university (UFPA) has partnership with Brazilian
institutions to provide telephony services and Internet via GPRS to
underserved (and very poor) communities in the Amazon forest. We are
then biased towards using GSM due e.g. to the low cost of the handsets.

Regards,
Aldebaro

-- 
==========================
Aldebaro Klautau
www.laps.ufpa.br - www.lasse.ufpa.br
Phone: +55 (91) 3201-7674
Address:
UFPA - PPGEE - LaPS - CP: 8619
66075.110 - Belem - Para - Brazil

 



From nobody Thu Apr 7 07:59:49 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6775F12D5B2 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:59:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W70KFRFSkYjn for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA87D12D5B5 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jsaldanalaptop ([10.1.42.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u37ElgVC003997; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:47:42 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Aldebaro Klautau'" , References: <035501d188e3$80ae37f0$820aa7d0$@unizar.es> <57067243.4050702@ieee.org> In-Reply-To: <57067243.4050702@ieee.org> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:47:53 +0200 Message-ID: <00b501d190dc$77705370$6650fa50$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B6_01D190ED.3AFE0570" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJLZIhye2PT06t8myKENu15n9LwugK4PrLlnnUtrbA= Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Aldebaro's suggestion #3 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:59:48 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01D190ED.3AFE0570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks a lot! We will try to integrate your suggestions in the next version (to appear soon). Jose De: Aldebaro Klautau [mailto:a.klautau@ieee.org] Enviado el: jueves, 7 de abril de 2016 16:44 Para: Jose Saldana ; gaia@irtf.org Asunto: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Aldebaro's suggestion #3 Dear all, First I would like to thank the editor for the careful handling of our suggestions. I tried to expand below the discussion on 3GPP technologies usage in alternative networks, and provide links to relevant pointers. Best regards, Aldebaro Current version: 6.2.1.2. GSM GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), from ETSI, has also been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained in [Mexican], [Village], [Heimerl]. Suggestion: 6.2.1.2. GSM GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), from ETSI, has also been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained in [Mexican], [Village], [Heimerl]. Open source GSM code such as [OpenBTS] and [OpenBSC] created an ecosystem with the participation of several companies [Range], [Endaga], [YateBTS] and deployments of voice, SMS and Internet services over alternative networks with an IP-based backhaul, for example. Internet navigation is restricted by relatively low bit rates [Osmocom]. Benefiting from the evolution of 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards, a clear trend is the integration of 4G [IEEE-SDR], [YateBTS] or 5G [OpenAir] functionalities, with significant increase of achievable bit rates. Depending on factors such as the allocated frequency band, the adoption of licensed spectrum can have advantages over the eventually higher frequencies used for WiFi, with respect to signal propagation and, consequently, coverage. Other factors favorable to 3GPP technologies, especially GSM, are the low cost and energy consumption of handsets, which facilitate the digital inclusion of very low-income communities that cannot afford WiFi-enabled smartphones or face difficulties for charging them. [OpenBTS] http://openbts.org/ [OpenBSC] http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac/ [Range] http://www.rangenetworks.com/ [Endaga] http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/endaga-raises-12m-help-it-bring-cel lular-remote-villages/2014-12-03 [YateBTS] http://yatebts.com/ [Osmocom] http://osmocom.org/projects/osmopcu/wiki/GPRS_bitrates/2 [IEEE-SDR] Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities Build Their Own 4G Networks, IEEE Spectrum 2015. Available at http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/softwaredefined-radio-will-let-com munities-build-their-own-4g-networks [OpenAir] http://www.openairinterface.org/ On 28/03/2016 08:18, Jose Saldana wrote: Suggestion #3 Current version: GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), from ETSI, has also been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained in [Mexican], [Village], [Heimerl]. Opinion: Item 6.2.1.2 could be expanded to include other 3GPP technologies, such as 3G, 4G/LTE [IEEE-SDR] and 5G [OpenAir], mentioning systems such as [OpenBTS], [OpenBSC] and [YateBTS]. If this is reasonable, I could try to expand it. [IEEE-SDR] Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities Build Their Own 4G Networks, IEEE Spectrum 2015. Available at http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/softwaredefined-radio-will-let-com munities-build-their-own-4g-networks [OpenBTS] http://openbts.org/ [OpenBSC] http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac/ [YateBTS] http://yatebts.com/ [OpenAir] http://www.openairinterface.org/ [JS] I think we must be as inclusive as possible. However, we have to report only those technologies that are being used in real "Alternative networks". Those ideas that are only in a first research stage can be reported, but only as "recent efforts" or "future possibilities". If you could expand the text, including these references, and stating the current status of each of them, we can discuss it with the people in the list. Thanks, Jose De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Aldebaro Klautau Enviado el: viernes, 11 de marzo de 2016 11:20 Para: gaia@irtf.org Asunto: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments Hello, I have recently joined the GAIA group and found draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03.txt very interesting. I am not sure if this is the proper way of contributing, but I am sending attached some suggestions. PS: Our university (UFPA) has partnership with Brazilian institutions to provide telephony services and Internet via GPRS to underserved (and very poor) communities in the Amazon forest. We are then biased towards using GSM due e.g. to the low cost of the handsets. Regards, Aldebaro -- ========================== Aldebaro Klautau www.laps.ufpa.br - www.lasse.ufpa.br Phone: +55 (91) 3201-7674 Address: UFPA - PPGEE - LaPS - CP: 8619 66075.110 - Belem - Para - Brazil ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01D190ED.3AFE0570 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks a lot! We will try to integrate your = suggestions in the next version (to appear = soon).

 

Jose

 

De: Aldebaro Klautau [mailto:a.klautau@ieee.org]
Enviado el: = jueves, 7 de abril de 2016 16:44
Para: Jose Saldana = <jsaldana@unizar.es>; gaia@irtf.org
Asunto: Re: [gaia] = Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. = Aldebaro's suggestion #3

 

Dear all,

First I would like to = thank the editor for the careful handling of our
suggestions. I tried = to expand below the discussion on 3GPP technologies
usage in = alternative networks, and provide links to relevant = pointers.

Best regards,
Aldebaro

Current = version:
6.2.1.2.  GSM
   GSM (Global System for = Mobile Communications), from ETSI, has also
   been used in = Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained
   = in [Mexican], [Village], [Heimerl].

Suggestion:
6.2.1.2.  = GSM
   GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), from = ETSI, has also
   been used in Alternative Networks as a = Layer 2 option, as explained
   in [Mexican], [Village], = [Heimerl]. Open source GSM code such as
   [OpenBTS] and = [OpenBSC] created an ecosystem with the participation
   of = several companies [Range], [Endaga], [YateBTS] and = deployments
   of voice, SMS and Internet services over = alternative networks with
   an IP-based backhaul, for = example. Internet navigation is restricted
   by relatively = low bit rates [Osmocom].

   Benefiting from the = evolution of 3rd Generation Partnership Project
   (3GPP) = standards, a clear trend is the integration of 4G = [IEEE-SDR],
   [YateBTS] or 5G [OpenAir] functionalities, = with significant increase
   of achievable bit = rates.

   Depending on factors such as the allocated = frequency band, the
   adoption of licensed spectrum can = have advantages over the
   eventually higher frequencies = used for WiFi, with respect to signal
   propagation and, = consequently, coverage. Other factors favorable
   to 3GPP = technologies, especially GSM, are the low cost and = energy
   consumption of handsets, which facilitate the = digital inclusion of
   very low-income communities that = cannot afford WiFi-enabled
   smartphones or face = difficulties for charging them.

   [OpenBTS] http://openbts.org/
   = [OpenBSC] http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac= /
   [Range] http://www.rangenetworks.com/<= br>   [Endaga] http://www.fiercewireless.co= m/tech/story/endaga-raises-12m-help-it-bring-cellular-remote-villages/201= 4-12-03
   [YateBTS] http://yatebts.com/
   = [Osmocom] http://= osmocom.org/projects/osmopcu/wiki/GPRS_bitrates/2
   = [IEEE-SDR] Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities Build = Their
   Own 4G Networks, IEEE Spectrum 2015. Available at =
   http://spectrum.ieee.org= /telecom/wireless/softwaredefined-radio-will-let-communities-build-their-= own-4g-networks
   [OpenAir] http://www.openairinterface.org= /

On 28/03/2016 = 08:18, Jose Saldana wrote:

Suggestion #3

 

Current version:

   GSM (Global System for Mobile = Communications), from ETSI, has also

   been used in Alternative Networks = as a Layer 2 option, as explained

   in [Mexican], [Village], = [Heimerl].

 

Opinion:

   Item 6.2.1.2 could be expanded to = include other 3GPP technologies,

   such as 3G, 4G/LTE [IEEE-SDR] and = 5G [OpenAir], mentioning systems

   such as [OpenBTS], [OpenBSC] and = [YateBTS]. If this is reasonable,

   I could try to expand = it.

 

   [IEEE-SDR] Software-Defined Radio = Will Let Communities Build Their

   Own 4G Networks, IEEE Spectrum = 2015. Available at

   http://spectrum.ieee.org= /telecom/wireless/softwaredefined-radio-will-let-communities-build-their-= own-4g-networks

   [OpenBTS] http://openbts.org/

   [OpenBSC] http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac= /

   [YateBTS] http://yatebts.com/

   [OpenAir] http://www.openairinterface.org= /

 

[JS] I think we must be as inclusive as = possible. However, we have to report only those technologies that are = being used in real “Alternative networks”. Those ideas that = are only in a first research stage can be reported, but only as = “recent efforts” or “future = possibilities”.

 

If you could expand the text, including these = references, and stating the current status of each of them, we can = discuss it with the people in the list.

 

Thanks,

 

Jose

 

De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] = En nombre de Aldebaro Klautau
Enviado el: viernes, 11 = de marzo de 2016 11:20
Para: gaia@irtf.org
Asunto: Re: = [gaia] Review required: = draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments

 

Hello,

I have recently joined the GAIA group = and found
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03.txt = very
interesting. I am not sure if this is the proper way of = contributing,
but I am sending attached some suggestions.

PS: = Our university (UFPA) has partnership with Brazilian
institutions to = provide telephony services and Internet via GPRS to
underserved (and = very poor) communities in the Amazon forest. We are
then biased = towards using GSM due e.g. to the low cost of the = handsets.

Regards,
Aldebaro


-- =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Aldebaro =
Klautau
www.laps.ufpa.br - www.lasse.ufpa.br
<= pre>Phone: +55 (91) = 3201-7674
Address:
UFPA - =
PPGEE - LaPS - CP: 8619
66075.110 - Belem - Para - =
Brazil

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01D190ED.3AFE0570-- From nobody Fri Apr 8 02:58:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C4012D7FE for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 02:57:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H_dcn3cRfPzt for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F0EC12D7F7 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id vo2so66244301lbb.1 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to; bh=RxeTvw325cYRk2aDmvYcm6XgpBGCD+H2DBDfvU6myNo=; b=DjPHRya8YWK6G3Dk5Y9HwQjD3M56lg5foR2EdxVBnQO+C//stnemT2BhCmawkFiOTx MwjT4DcsTlpcNwEHTMOA1ArCUbgRqwrDwuwBF0YiyTvdhRRjnXWOmhkEdbIknOZOai0a OUVQnWuZUM62OUh10aUEvGBqbxSB0a1ltdVmt2UdsN7WUCsNjEdNgn+wShZx0fuci0Dy de8+8viadsWbv6/EfXn1YfzBG+JQws0gRKcrLFnMtsRsSoV2muOVNi+wPaTybMGBSs+W bNEeS9SQov3DUItDwqkAVanABPTf+JBh4xsoIDJlMytqzEi4/okQIMAznG2F2rGk/XNL 7heg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=RxeTvw325cYRk2aDmvYcm6XgpBGCD+H2DBDfvU6myNo=; b=Pa46E1lWuDOvWdJCFkrG82QQA2zakaH+C3Dyn5QbHXIuZB9QBFWfp4hPnHW09GtBcM Til91P9tBOIRsKNrXR7lDZYf9QKt+7/R6nf5ol0l/Rp3BhgCcO6CBc5T6prfMBo/euvl S707iAzs+ByybXUXR7oZ7yB2sFki7Je6pe9B+4BYTl1FPMyQkL62056uMN4VlKj1qK5Q fhH7MC55gdwAxdyKnyPl9YWqvXI4RQT3kWRXO8NYwjAqY5huRby5nQXDfAzbIfy3z8tY DL3gCFZeiO/fxGRgkVcPo1IFfliMGp2BH7WbAoJaUkCGiKeqVJpsPWbSnbcxNp6NOU4k aNYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKqA6LdrbeTaYA0ObTHWtRnd5CCswrJcd6rvw+WZfTjaOJOyBkEtcgr7fASmhRwCDblnD6+Oxm0ryn4Bw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.167.37 with SMTP id zl5mr3391312lbb.60.1460109462344; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 02:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 02:57:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3650E265-544C-441D-893E-56848BB12317@csperkins.org> References: <3650E265-544C-441D-893E-56848BB12317@csperkins.org> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:57:42 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iQhyeplrNHbA0xZr40N3nHgRGzQ Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: gaia Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25fd4d61d7b052ff63968 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 02:58:44 -0700 Subject: [gaia] Fwd: CFP: ACM, IRTF & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop 2016 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:57:50 -0000 --001a11c25fd4d61d7b052ff63968 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Colin Perkins Date: 8 April 2016 at 10:56 Subject: CFP: ACM, IRTF & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop 2016 To: NGN@jiscmail.ac.uk ACM, IRTF & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop 2016 Berlin, Germany Saturday, July 16, 2016 https://irtf.org/anrw/2016/ *** CALL FOR PAPERS *** The inaugural ACM, IRTF & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop 2016 (ANRW=E2=80=9916) is an academic workshop that provides a forum for researchers, vendors, network operators, and the Internet standards community to present and discuss emerging results in applied networking research. It is sponsored by ACM SIGCOMM, the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and the Internet Society (ISOC). Researchers should consider submitting early/emerging results that illustrate the scientific and engineering principles underlying the Internet architecture, protocols and applications; that demonstrate new capabilities, features, or extensions to the Internet protocol layers; that enhance our understanding of how Internet protocols work in real-world deployments or realistic test-beds; or that improve Internet security and privacy, scalability, performance, and robustness. The ANRW=E2=80=9916 particularly encourages the submission of results that could form the basis for future engineering work in the IETF, that could change operational Internet practices, that can help better specify Internet protocols, or that could influence further research and experimentation in the IRTF. *** TOPICS OF INTEREST *** Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, applied work in the following areas: * Evolution of the Internet architecture and deployment of new Internetworking paradigms * Naming, addressing, and routing for the future Internet * Development and deployment of new and improved transport protocols * Congestion control for heterogeneous networks and novel applications * Improvements to the security and privacy of Internet protocols * Studies that characterize Internet security, privacy or censorship * Measuring and understanding the behaviour and transparency of the Internet * Internetworking and semantic interoperability for resource-constrained devices * New approaches to network management, operations, and control * Better ways of specifying protocols, including usable techniques for protocol verification * Enabling global access to the Internet * Improving the energy efficiency of the Internet * Protocols and APIs for new Internet applications * New approaches to decentralized mobility management * Application of network programmability to the Internet *** SUBMISSION TYPES *** The ANRW accepts two types of submissions: full papers and short papers. * Full papers Full paper submissions should be complete academic papers on the topics above and may contain up to six pages of technical content, including figures, tables, any appendices, etc., optionally followed by a single additional page for references and acknowledgements only. Accepted full papers will be presented and discussed in depth at the workshop, and will be published in the ACM Digital Library. * Short papers Short paper submissions are suitable for short position papers, for starting a discussion on new technical ideas, to present very early results, or to present other topics of interest to the community (software and tools, research initiatives or collaborative projects, major new funding vessels, etc.). They may contain up to two pages of content including figures, tables, any appendices, etc., optionally followed by a single additional page for references and acknowledgements only. Accepted short papers will be briefly presented during the workshop, and will be published in the ACM Digital Library. Authors of accepted short papers may also bring a poster presenting its content to the workshop, for display and more in-depth discussion with interested participants during the breaks. *** IMPORTANT DATES *** Submission deadline: May 16, 2016 Notification deadline: June 17, 2016 Camera-ready deadline: June 24, 2016 *** ORGANISING COMMITTEE *** Programme chairs: * Lars Eggert (NetApp) * Colin Perkins (University of Glasgow) Technical Programme Committee: * Aaron Falk (Akamai) * Gorry Fairhurst (University of Aberdeen) * Stephen Farrell (Trinity College Dublin) * Jana Iyengar (Google) * Dirk Kutscher (NEC Laboratories Europe) * Mirja K=C3=BChlewind (ETH Z=C3=BCrich) * Al Morton (AT&T) * J=C3=B6rg Ott (Technische Universit=C3=A4t M=C3=BCnchen) * Arjuna Sathiaseelan (University of Cambridge) * Brian Trammell (ETH Z=C3=BCrich) * Lixia Zhang (UCLA) -+- --=20 Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a11c25fd4d61d7b052ff63968 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

---------- Forwarded messag= e ----------
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org= >
Date: 8 April 2016 at 10:56
Subject: CFP: ACM, IRTF &= ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop 2016
To: NGN@jiscmail.ac.uk


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ACM, IRTF= & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop 2016

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 Berlin, Germany
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Satur= day, July 16, 2016
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://ir= tf.org/anrw/2016/


*** CALL FOR PAPERS ***

The inaugural ACM, IRTF & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop
2016 (ANRW=E2=80=9916) is an academic workshop that provides a forum for researchers, vendors, network operators, and the Internet standards
community to present and discuss emerging results in applied
networking research. It is sponsored by ACM SIGCOMM, the Internet
Research Task Force (IRTF) and the Internet Society (ISOC).

Researchers should consider submitting early/emerging results that
illustrate the scientific and engineering principles underlying the
Internet architecture, protocols and applications; that demonstrate
new capabilities, features, or extensions to the Internet protocol
layers; that enhance our understanding of how Internet protocols work
in real-world deployments or realistic test-beds; or that improve
Internet security and privacy, scalability, performance, and
robustness.

The ANRW=E2=80=9916 particularly encourages the submission of results that<= br> could form the basis for future engineering work in the IETF, that
could change operational Internet practices, that can help better
specify Internet protocols, or that could influence further research
and experimentation in the IRTF.


*** TOPICS OF INTEREST ***

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, applied work in the
following areas:

=C2=A0 * Evolution of the Internet architecture and deployment of new
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Internetworking paradigms
=C2=A0 * Naming, addressing, and routing for the future Internet
=C2=A0 * Development and deployment of new and improved transport protocols=
=C2=A0 * Congestion control for heterogeneous networks and novel
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 applications
=C2=A0 * Improvements to the security and privacy of Internet protocols
=C2=A0 * Studies that characterize Internet security, privacy or censorship=
=C2=A0 * Measuring and understanding the behaviour and transparency of the<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Internet
=C2=A0 * Internetworking and semantic interoperability for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 resource-constrained devices
=C2=A0 * New approaches to network management, operations, and control
=C2=A0 * Better ways of specifying protocols, including usable techniques =C2=A0 =C2=A0 for protocol verification
=C2=A0 * Enabling global access to the Internet
=C2=A0 * Improving the energy efficiency of the Internet
=C2=A0 * Protocols and APIs for new Internet applications
=C2=A0 * New approaches to decentralized mobility management
=C2=A0 * Application of network programmability to the Internet


*** SUBMISSION TYPES ***

The ANRW accepts two types of submissions: full papers and short
papers.

* Full papers

=C2=A0 Full paper submissions should be complete academic papers on the
=C2=A0 topics above and may contain up to six pages of technical content, =C2=A0 including figures, tables, any appendices, etc., optionally followed=
=C2=A0 by a single additional page for references and acknowledgements only= .

=C2=A0 Accepted full papers will be presented and discussed in depth at the=
=C2=A0 workshop, and will be published in the ACM Digital Library.

* Short papers

=C2=A0 Short paper submissions are suitable for short position papers, for<= br> =C2=A0 starting a discussion on new technical ideas, to present very early<= br> =C2=A0 results, or to present other topics of interest to the community
=C2=A0 (software and tools, research initiatives or collaborative projects,=
=C2=A0 major new funding vessels, etc.). They may contain up to two pages =C2=A0 of content including figures, tables, any appendices, etc.,
=C2=A0 optionally followed by a single additional page for references and =C2=A0 acknowledgements only.

=C2=A0 Accepted short papers will be briefly presented during the workshop,=
=C2=A0 and will be published in the ACM Digital Library.

=C2=A0 Authors of accepted short papers may also bring a poster presenting<= br> =C2=A0 its content to the workshop, for display and more in-depth
=C2=A0 discussion with interested participants during the breaks.


*** IMPORTANT DATES ***

Submission deadline:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0May 16, 2016
Notification deadline:=C2=A0 =C2=A0June 17, 2016
Camera-ready deadline:=C2=A0 =C2=A0June 24, 2016


*** ORGANISING COMMITTEE ***

Programme chairs:

=C2=A0 * Lars Eggert (NetApp)
=C2=A0 * Colin Perkins (University of Glasgow)

Technical Programme Committee:

=C2=A0 * Aaron Falk (Akamai)
=C2=A0 * Gorry Fairhurst (University of Aberdeen)
=C2=A0 * Stephen Farrell (Trinity College Dublin)
=C2=A0 * Jana Iyengar (Google)
=C2=A0 * Dirk Kutscher (NEC Laboratories Europe)
=C2=A0 * Mirja K=C3=BChlewind (ETH Z=C3=BCrich)
=C2=A0 * Al Morton (AT&T)
=C2=A0 * J=C3=B6rg Ott (Technische Universit=C3=A4t M=C3=BCnchen)
=C2=A0 * Arjuna Sathiaseelan (University of Cambridge)
=C2=A0 * Brian Trammell=C2=A0 (ETH Z=C3=BCrich)
=C2=A0 * Lixia Zhang (UCLA)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -+-



--
--001a11c25fd4d61d7b052ff63968-- From nobody Sat Apr 9 21:34:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2613512D595 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 21:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XnGcXPJg7uze for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 21:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x243.google.com (mail-ig0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9769B12D0CD for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 21:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x243.google.com with SMTP id kb1so7417539igb.3 for ; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 21:34:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=GW8aWsXcKLTLjRnJS1qDO6a902gJenTcxHk3438iVlk=; b=iX0jBjgumRHg7KGBXW7VhqslLiUmpWnKnBoBopQD8diUWgRllsNf75xpyhB1Io4kfD cROtkngJkZ5D3qN9yvmVrBo72FlsncPIVgVdLmKkS7+TzhKvh+CaDAq6Jv8oq1yulBuq SOJa6CrwZXi55mcoGIFAEwPT1UoIlKrPoG91Q5+mKXLre1vHC9WKESmvwegqfZPBgpkZ sw7+hxC70fu8wbQI7HM0nSxjC5bvrW0ly1gmra0FIkFXSHY4SwBMpz9O5j4zjG1fYE4G n/T5q+0ZS6qwIzBW0LEqWMK84sz4RI4BhNXVFzRhLv3Vmk0MglmTjkalO5ZJ1W+WK7P4 o67w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=GW8aWsXcKLTLjRnJS1qDO6a902gJenTcxHk3438iVlk=; b=js0M39MacbSMwVRCOVSN8Q8ietJYpcDCw473A3LAVOkNUPCHVM5gBfD2M4xFksJIQX thGKElVBAkMmKw61xaD0hoOb0X7aof2n3LP8oy4V+msJwU4926vc+ZJIgwlNy6iEtinv WOvm/ljs+5lq3e7SS6ao/F5vjrrfbWC/1Fw5dnHIfehDNAgBKdkpn4jJHTLz9BdvliwK DQhWF7SAswbKF0gO45zFhVSxUCtkZEF3bcJ37QjgPHqgSA68CTlrpm3uSgA6IO9xTWgz 1jky0G9uEE+ans2MLrhM7MDQTNOzIMi+1EyeEsj9Z7J6u4OisLh7IYZRjYp6UqNQcy87 3FFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVZMSTqnmluJcW7sMLNfjNGOmh/Huub/JEUWxSjSjZX8/lCOgP1kz+82GBv0/xdey/B2byYTDtwl0kzEg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.108.49 with SMTP id hh17mr3641947igb.31.1460262843994; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 21:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 21:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 21:34:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: gaia@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 04:34:06 -0000 Hi! While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But I think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and technical advancements in community networks and their deployments. I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Sat Apr 9 22:23:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E50B12D59D for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 22:23:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.196 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QfVfodhWxlQq for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 22:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from greenlight.cs.princeton.edu (greenlight.CS.Princeton.EDU [128.112.136.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 818DB12D52B for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 22:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from android-7d55f93acb818e12.lan (c-98-204-68-135.hsd1.dc.comcast.net [98.204.68.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by greenlight.cs.princeton.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3A5NMXZ018304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:26 -0400 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----UAGQPT5F81OWFUUDIB7ZU9ZWGGK8K9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Nick Feamster Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:19 -0400 To: Mitar , gaia@irtf.org Message-ID: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 05:23:30 -0000 ------UAGQPT5F81OWFUUDIB7ZU9ZWGGK8K9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All of the papers are behind a paywall. "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: >Hi! > >While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the >papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks >journal: > >http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 > >I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But I >think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is >trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and >technical advancements in community networks and their deployments. > >I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate >information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading >the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well. > > >Mitar > >-- >http://mitar.tnode.com/ >https://twitter.com/mitar_m > >_______________________________________________ >gaia mailing list >gaia@irtf.org >https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia -Nick ------UAGQPT5F81OWFUUDIB7ZU9ZWGGK8K9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit All of the papers are behind a paywall.

"Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony.

On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the
papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks
journal:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2

I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But I
think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is
trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and
technical advancements in community networks and their deployments.

I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate
information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading
the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well.


Mitar


-Nick ------UAGQPT5F81OWFUUDIB7ZU9ZWGGK8K9-- From nobody Sun Apr 10 01:16:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A885B12D140 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:16:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ScLwQKiRioFk for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B30E12D118 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c126so121817112lfb.2 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:16:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=oUSfxEOnyHpTsC6CnX3sTLW4/8XrFyd367db4rZnR7Y=; b=e5qusvvHqrvQUmQziB2M90r+DomUwKEph6hLsQyStBfO0iTz7FlmRRYH+c5ZdZvwXd CRxV4RAh8N7jeWMxTIHKv3MvxmBdoE/Dzq3L9RvgrERUFOCjRpe6dRDId+1Xdb2j6PTm axonOfZRwuVgM3pWMDjT2r8uCaseoyrM3tREiIxmXx4eAKoCGZAeY1RUOT4zMFQvdwxc eA5qNBCQHlH/eVMJ68hBaHnh/ehx3PsV0TEqiM2Wxz7PA1GMSePkiTgCYzq2HzRD43nz xHDQF4fl3TXt8aAsJSlE2Po7bT/RxNbpuCw2xuk45Kg4MKj1xT9CgDc08vtDlezga4wQ OPfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=oUSfxEOnyHpTsC6CnX3sTLW4/8XrFyd367db4rZnR7Y=; b=RVd4gdFKdBgV2aGl9xZOBgut+xi1hSYUz3hCkzDz9bsZWyDIPnS6G30efa42624vRy zKYfKcLvjtv2eJ/OKo+34b0YcwhR9onhGCZNvUkUATlHJl4yNRkkTZSbtiV4nZ4yHQph Du1aU/cfiFTzGkcwC0F2ppYCwp20rsB82eM0H9xq5+6FODNiRWT2/E4+q1BttEhl/Vxf JFxE4eqV4rF1ww+90f8NcQpSIVz3oMuEebb3kfhgiQYvd9SWojFGFXX6zTGUtihsEviv b/ss7i/zoNdrQw9xUhy11ZYcgQN0dwepPMewO/fpTZcX86vYw6kLoPqZY3r5O0FzfNGo dyMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIg+61Bezf8Vrl5L0zVXuSZbQmmQDBfokbL6HU5LMMXjKjMqLbwMr3fC3+Vxijf+StD0G88QweoqroLcA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.90.79 with SMTP id o76mr6445247lfb.9.1460276192790; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:16:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:16:32 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZiMZhZs4Tq0bRaugqCmsQs2FTrA Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Nick Feamster Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140027abece2305301d0b75 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Mitar Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:16:37 -0000 --001a1140027abece2305301d0b75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 same as zero rating ;) On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster wrote: > All of the papers are behind a paywall. > > "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. > > On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the >> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks >> journal: >> >> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 >> >> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But I >> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is >> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and >> technical advancements in community networks and their deployments. >> >> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate >> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading >> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well. >> >> >> Mitar >> >> > > -Nick > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a1140027abece2305301d0b75 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
same as zero rating ;)
On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster <feamster@cs.princeton.edu> wrote:
All of the papers are behind a paywall.

"Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony.

On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM = EDT, Mitar <mmitar= @gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite a= ny of the
papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer N= etworks
journal:

http://www.sciencedirect.com= /science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2

I suspect that maybe it was= missed because it is fairly recent? But I
think articles very much addr= ess many questions the RFC draft is
trying to address as well: what are = recent organizational and
technical advancements in community networks a= nd their deployments.

I would urge editors to read through papers an= d see how to integrate
information from those papers into the RFC. I wil= l continue reading
the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers wou= ld help as well.


Mitar


-Nick

______________________________________________= _
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia




--
--001a1140027abece2305301d0b75-- From nobody Sun Apr 10 01:23:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C5E12D1E7 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LlgZdvVsMB1J for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991D512D184 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id g185so176037607ioa.2 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Sm+scsH0gfHd1G7UWPfHTX4EE6zBzd7Ywydn6o098t4=; b=fYHvZ+dCJ6t5R032Q1HGuf6o7yTjgAXJbzTi35o/2woQYZLj86lSXexHrhFzg7ehyf HWweEx/cfhdzPZ0OrHnc9PF0MGR1Twbp7cR8zF/GBqbIRkXZH5tjHzA+gnrmEuPCz97P 0TLYEUzLCXPgn4uFQTmEG7H2zhd5N3U/V2G8y2uoDaO4Qp73wLajoJDTTpaQ2EYuaCEw hFQzVBuHpqbTMAoySzCE3fo4fM3Fh8IyzRqvK/AEPLzEoGZ95OuKNvb53X3D+Ex/PhqI XOY2mZtXVuKzay11QBkX2s3+3fdniNV6BeC8XpCZylpRC3Wy7IHI+L8FR9kBS3zcnOVZ 1HlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Sm+scsH0gfHd1G7UWPfHTX4EE6zBzd7Ywydn6o098t4=; b=Yvc2EWUzQjnNrp0vP2TloyRvt7aInPY2QSkED179vESojPREtFY7bBVCt/YN52nQLT bVrsjXslLzHhPrVF3QChMYEwzfTaCy5awTFYxiDWC3ROKlorLjjwG30UJojeHh5DakIC xoQK/ADfx7tYNZZhWLdrlGKPV7DdBGLmEXhGCUT2WTXLeRH6yca16A2qBW7TYxkhHkjg C1WPru0mIy7KG3iUE5Sr3RTMqIQWvAMl8+UCKu/j0ZxR361UoDYA01y7qSl3020hfhyv FsHs5MA0ctgvlL2jG/lYaNATudgqo99HSg6fkDKX7XIxJ3VAyKAstGJylGxvgBitYW5/ Tt7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKqIvyF40wx8TO7BRxlpdrzRbDgJ+FSL2BBP+Qi8OT0ar3AmJElRYn9ojtn9rcx74lR3VJvdaSwGg9TlQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.134.8 with SMTP id i8mr16899245iod.130.1460276599996; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:23:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Nick Feamster Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:23:22 -0000 Hi! But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge. You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-) Mitar On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > same as zero rating ;) > > On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster wrote: >> >> All of the papers are behind a paywall. >> >> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. >> >> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the >>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks >>> journal: >>> >>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 >>> >>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But I >>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is >>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and >>> technical advancements in community networks and their deployments. >>> >>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate >>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading >>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well. >>> >>> >>> Mitar >> >> >> >> -Nick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gaia mailing list >> gaia@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >> > > > > -- > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Sun Apr 10 01:26:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CBC712D1E7 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:26:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lIwDcmOjmhjX for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22d.google.com (mail-lf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF6B412D184 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id c126so121939693lfb.2 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:26:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=nVcPBsN/cOVReNmpFFaLsIHlrdiiN5IBX6kMU13o/0A=; b=v/MN8LFKCyYMnSXbd4ypSgRYUJcWxINnXGcglIhWpbHvwSPmSMN+9qRk637AXyGwqF f3YVI5W8wuVPu48auPpJlOElq6yg4KCLEkIGz298xcStTuQ6JekQZi3w0XKJvBtZ0X/O acJ6iBMp2hBjikOeaMiPWKYhrTEHWy4D9OmiOT5oARrNzaROEb1LqvPaEU76G3u5aGjA 8+xak3uwlz7MOHqnMzeWWxd4poig9yy555jLXUekMSJcbApEiJLq2PugFzlLlte4cxBw jbwuA71pAi3cGAS6wGhzrQgn2N5Sb+Pmf/6MRElbxY1uLGpBS/GlOK1d9ZPz6QsX6AmL VVsA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=nVcPBsN/cOVReNmpFFaLsIHlrdiiN5IBX6kMU13o/0A=; b=k8YuHsc2GE/FgliwM8sVAjNK+2pd2tIg/Mq8/1UuqgrVTpuU6O/IKBXbjsCgScrjzs EGtBAX61nA9Y3tGcug+QPGM6xi+Dv8PYMIwDG05f79Wjh1trXoy/xaFf7yNlMcm1pnP8 472TgEVe37dt1lRQz3IEqYVZOeTXgZKYZ4H2yiev7IueZs3fGgQUy/2ou+rOAaYcUsaA lDDyipw+iLGFUtDtrnRaf34ax7BiG5qdzOSgJFztX2/flOuCKBEMlrItm2Etr0OMEA62 LbE5yQUQFcVD16zLfwDpYWbx30oRzec00o3eZpcxOaKtzy4FU0m8lJajVvfYgSCTYcT0 UfHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKOCdjPiWrXAbjgYeXKpuN0ql8ziTnFVX5zZmTDoqRMnJ98lpXmi8PoFhhWmfOgeEypf8FBowQbqrEyCA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.21.28 with SMTP id l28mr5052987lfi.165.1460276776959; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:26:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:26:16 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: T4f3710waEl0Dydd08pL44K18Lo Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e5b929088fd05301d2ead Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Nick Feamster Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:26:21 -0000 --001a113e5b929088fd05301d2ead Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 kind words :) we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge. > You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-) > > > Mitar > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > wrote: > > same as zero rating ;) > > > > On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster > wrote: > >> > >> All of the papers are behind a paywall. > >> > >> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. > >> > >> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the > >>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks > >>> journal: > >>> > >>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 > >>> > >>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But I > >>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is > >>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and > >>> technical advancements in community networks and their deployments. > >>> > >>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate > >>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading > >>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well. > >>> > >>> > >>> Mitar > >> > >> > >> > >> -Nick > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gaia mailing list > >> gaia@irtf.org > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > > > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a113e5b929088fd05301d2ead Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
kind words :)

we need more of this:=C2= =A0http://sci-hub.io/

On 10 April 2016 at 09:2= 3, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge.
You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-)


Mitar

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan= @cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> same as zero rating ;)
>
> On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster <feamster@cs.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>> All of the papers are behind a paywall.
>>
>> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony= .
>>
>> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any = of the
>>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer N= etworks
>>> journal:
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencedirec= t.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2
>>>
>>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent= ? But I
>>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft = is
>>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and<= br> >>> technical advancements in community networks and their deploym= ents.
>>>
>>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to int= egrate
>>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue re= ading
>>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help a= s well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mitar
>>
>>
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gaia mailing list
>> gaia@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >>
>
>
>
> --
> Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d






--
=
--001a113e5b929088fd05301d2ead-- From nobody Sun Apr 10 01:38:57 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B7312D109 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jEqDjyoF3h9j for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x243.google.com (mail-ig0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89D4D12D0CF for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x243.google.com with SMTP id kb1so7738767igb.3 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:38:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=TFSUZoh7zfofjZaUxE+pHMUiaf6ZlTO9ouZXHHWBGZU=; b=Lqa+uYhEfe9t2IVYWW3oPIr2JAnhlco0EPg8+OWHNGkcw/CWD+F2AC6+w495DaZ7AR IQREAxSswrkRGDYgIloFzEqkG/bmVaeO1Tem7CAlboYWoaioY9rY3ulucis230lJ9g0X dbUHleJg+v9pB2UmHMRDE1othR5BCnJhGNiwZ6HAhVJyMYu/N1gJpQ9AxLI5Bg5LBzCd PSf4Xao4wcXImHfbT25TfBa3ynZXzsL0VfQKzkWk/viY8VcD6BI1uQCVUmZCSkSqqmss 7o2mJsseLBqGVt0rIh1FQNyVFp5Da418rX3sr4Fn3Dum20ssYYv84z/c80JglqA74ZkU jk+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=TFSUZoh7zfofjZaUxE+pHMUiaf6ZlTO9ouZXHHWBGZU=; b=ZxxxNN0L+WPV338OUA4tEELfFSMl6PQAxJ5dl5Ks+voQ46CMg5ypG376+kDyQ+d1Km UV8x6vycB3x1tB2Pc+gUAWRJbscUp4+KKzp3+LkGFobl+w+l/YX5NHEHKHhmCyqBUwLR OkguaYMpEddlk9Hwj0olId8Y4i4ixieU+4+46IgDeuFiJUapMFJhntfXQITLubfu3dfY bJXtJAXGU3oK7XjNYOfkPAvQBAzaHSwvtSkreebO5qnl+d2/GMqRvrth25AxjvtSuAPf bhyVBN4ogwPMdCM+oeCx1i/yP5wjy045HSIibac/dFbVTOKk+L/QL1udVr5yxOjmzffx y24w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLKK0g9OAflUSbJQdJgazz2ihXokLG592yldvvyBX0XarOUJvqrgcQkPFY6pTVRIQaGCubohZlB2LYdPg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.77.45 with SMTP id p13mr12327061igw.38.1460277533851; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:38:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:38:53 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Nick Feamster Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:38:56 -0000 Hi! I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about others: https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper Mitar On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > kind words :) > > we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ > > On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge. >> You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-) >> >> >> Mitar >> >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan >> wrote: >> > same as zero rating ;) >> > >> > On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> All of the papers are behind a paywall. >> >> >> >> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. >> >> >> >> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi! >> >>> >> >>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the >> >>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks >> >>> journal: >> >>> >> >>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 >> >>> >> >>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But I >> >>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is >> >>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and >> >>> technical advancements in community networks and their deployments. >> >>> >> >>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate >> >>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading >> >>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Mitar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Nick >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> gaia mailing list >> >> gaia@irtf.org >> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Arjuna Sathiaseelan >> > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ >> > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d >> >> >> >> -- >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > > > > -- > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Sun Apr 10 01:40:26 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4583E12D12F for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:40:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4G7WFnXJ417h for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71DD512D0CF for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id g184so122139716lfb.3 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:40:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=y3z0s7lmvVOLL4RPrc+1EPEbXnLaL0DLRkb26CajGIs=; b=CJlok9uG6BjD+eQE00LGn/yylsTA7Z2kMaSXKbeB5vkaXhPmr23MJnZB0dgurS9wh1 9T3f/DNtjaSO4oz5LqKxlj7uDL3fNa6cwBejpNPr/b+Dv2Av346faDyQWcEFocJVgYDR ypFvvKyg35G+nuYSisfIKHUCLWfqmCjYxgaRomWiTEoWEo1YsdHg37kA10xQo3/+HCP4 EsnVyCmt2GFxjfSNVl6KLJzo9lO18fpOm6MPEqjCGRRq8+eU+PnzBxEjfhZMfQ59lqNb 33cum+z4XkZtv416lhZovFJEq3Rpt7D7alJk39LYjSCp6opgNURsf5JuRWh0+Su0HCDp fKJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=y3z0s7lmvVOLL4RPrc+1EPEbXnLaL0DLRkb26CajGIs=; b=BSV1J3GY4Qyu8fwl1MPFLGQMr0l6yEecrOa41Q1TNokCc52V5aEufZQwT4jRh3Ad92 tQxrAt+Y62pSNmDorNvBvuvuvtTHsLV2CUbe6aQWZkFxwTvQkgwrd9sRGG9Wshhy21mE 8ZrC0uf0J1wx6lXefOjhZAj5SSObsKtHwDhBhftclz0nSUkQaZK4sDA9f+ChDuxb3+JC cijxr2ohvPZU5jvdoyzZHuj+iHcn/CjyoMa4RlJST81o5KRVGLKa/hBQoKed1oGHJTYu mSN5iE5aZtBjY7qu7rP6YJrdLvXtcwShbTYjFlv+E9LEGO64xQqSkuANcq+4cS6vedpJ rT8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ949+hBfcYYTBHjeFDnr+jx0SoBxEkau+AG1Ha43Zb74sIuewshT83aER1KRf+/bUg3RG7XwGu2HzUqQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.127.208 with SMTP id a199mr6695952lfd.46.1460277620679; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.98.99 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:40:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:40:20 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: o3I47W6qWgcpSIDwBi0pfQyhxFQ Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eb6dadaad4805301d6026 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Nick Feamster Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:40:25 -0000 --001a113eb6dadaad4805301d6026 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 the EU funding regulations explicitly states that all published papers from EU funded projects should be available through open access.. On 10 April 2016 at 09:38, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about others: > > https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper > > > Mitar > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > wrote: > > kind words :) > > > > we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ > > > > On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge. > >> You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-) > >> > >> > >> Mitar > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > >> wrote: > >> > same as zero rating ;) > >> > > >> > On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> All of the papers are behind a paywall. > >> >> > >> >> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. > >> >> > >> >> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi! > >> >>> > >> >>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the > >> >>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer > Networks > >> >>> journal: > >> >>> > >> >>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 > >> >>> > >> >>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But > I > >> >>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is > >> >>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and > >> >>> technical advancements in community networks and their deployments. > >> >>> > >> >>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate > >> >>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading > >> >>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as > well. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Mitar > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -Nick > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> gaia mailing list > >> >> gaia@irtf.org > >> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > >> > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > >> > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ > >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > > > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a113eb6dadaad4805301d6026 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
the EU funding regulations explicitly states that all publ= ished papers from EU funded projects should be available through open acces= s..

On 10 Ap= ril 2016 at 09:38, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about others:

https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper=


Mitar

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> kind words :)
>
> we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/
>
> On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge= .
>> You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. := -)
>>
>>
>> Mitar
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
>> <arjuna.sat= hiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > same as zero rating ;)
>> >
>> > On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster <feamster@cs.princeton.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> All of the papers are behind a paywall.
>> >>
>> >> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, = the irony.
>> >>
>> >> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi!
>> >>>
>> >>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not = cite any of the
>> >>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of C= omputer Networks
>> >>> journal:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.sci= encedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2
>> >>>
>> >>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fair= ly recent? But I
>> >>> think articles very much address many questions the R= FC draft is
>> >>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizati= onal and
>> >>> technical advancements in community networks and thei= r deployments.
>> >>>
>> >>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see h= ow to integrate
>> >>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will co= ntinue reading
>> >>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers wou= ld help as well.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Mitar
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Nick
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> gaia mailing list
>> >> gaia@irtf.org
>> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ga= ia
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Arjuna Sathiaseelan
>> > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
>> > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d >>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://mitar.tnode.com/
>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>
>
>
>
> --
> Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d



--
ht= tp://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m



--
=
--001a113eb6dadaad4805301d6026-- From nobody Sun Apr 10 02:05:19 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CEF512D122 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.196 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1suT5bgiPXTr for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk (mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.25.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0543E12D109 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandy.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.64.182]) by mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1apBAx-0004Vz-UX; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:56:59 +0100 From: Jon Crowcroft To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan In-reply-to: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Comments: In-reply-to Arjuna Sathiaseelan message dated "Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:40:20 +0100." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5084.1460279109.1@sandy.cl.cam.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:05:09 +0100 Message-Id: Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Nick Feamster , Mitar Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:05:18 -0000 right - but "open access" unfortunately has several different definitions - the lesat bad one is that the authors hold a copy on their institutional repository (equiv of mit dspace for example).... the best one is publish in palces which just put up open (free) access for all anyhow - ideally usenix, fairly ideal is ACM where the author can provide an open access (authorizer) link to the digital library (which has two advantages - one the library may last longer than the authors institution, and two, the costs are born by the ACM so the author doesnt have to find funds for their institute to run a repostory which in the GAIA Context seems sane)... the worst "open" access is some of the paywalled publises will provide an open access version if you pay them a massive (and usually rediculous rentier/properteeringly high) fee - i'm increasingly refuse to even review papers for such publishers > the EU funding regulations explicitly states that all published papers > from > EU funded projects should be available through open access.. > > On 10 April 2016 at 09:38, Mitar wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about others: > > > > https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper > > > > > > Mitar > > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > wrote: > > > kind words :) > > > > > > we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ > > > > > > On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi! > > >> > > >> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge. > > >> You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-) > > >> > > >> > > >> Mitar > > >> > > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > >> wrote: > > >> > same as zero rating ;) > > >> > > > >> > On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster > > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> All of the papers are behind a paywall. > > >> >> > > >> >> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. > > >> >> > > >> >> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Hi! > > >> >>> > > >> >>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of > the > > >> >>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer > > Networks > > >> >>> journal: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? > But > > I > > >> >>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is > > >> >>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and > > >> >>> technical advancements in community networks and their > deployments. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to > integrate > > >> >>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue > reading > > >> >>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as > > well. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Mitar > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> -Nick > > >> >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> gaia mailing list > > >> >> gaia@irtf.org > > >> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > >> > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > > >> > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ > > >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > > > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > > > > > > > > -- > > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > > > > > -- > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > From nobody Sun Apr 10 02:21:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74F412D187 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:21:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=int80-biz.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n1z-RKPhBkYv for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x243.google.com (mail-pa0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6843412D13F for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-x243.google.com with SMTP id hb4so12199420pac.1 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:21:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=int80-biz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EzPrLcG4KL/Bc4/rB/qpsu4E5K3GK8Shhfhar8LDIjo=; b=GHs9IYcxOvKJ9ZzsNECRLItgSpuVHtNHDr1TqZ0/OQBnNfZhv1/vLRTZSC3tgDbYHB ewDNdrLOSTEgR/ZkpKbIG6FKE/nHyYRyY6rnJQzHzhmRv8/9tBpLFNNLKgl7DKrPOvbg vLqHTWyqlrqF+0qB5AJU+rkmvKk5M6W2ktGh72/m2hrOrmnrZ+aqCE5TIg8KeOWQD/TH 03G99tW01Kn8dlyi46D8y8zeeba3K0L+AVrfp6wUtebsRK4uHA4xRzM9a+x01Xif/P3i io3wI1qX9zWAo0k7xr49MEig8dc0nMDuKC6G5GbX7YgIlY5Lg1MJIO84xDvcQRWlOLOO B/ng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EzPrLcG4KL/Bc4/rB/qpsu4E5K3GK8Shhfhar8LDIjo=; b=PtOTGn4zW7BsS9e/63S146gfE40wi68h493zLYf43gsqnRApZeEDLn4VqwCD529fId nkzVQTPFITLjX7jRKFIgtdmvNdsCx7FJ+iffrnCDE63ZwAietq2NG9CmNHvxx8APKW6+ nF7tU3HagmbB3o+aiDK8IsQM1Vlj3qc5ZeefquO+/1NmpPO4YuAHKYplkyE/ICDO92kE 4kX3/4n9KCYiaIERrN3iumKqdX1VCphdnTKKv7qZzDCumidigFiMaDCcYAjSj55oZHAx xrrvfTkEuqWllWOfVy4nM61adafUBBbyGNGGSY5NozxhuVgg7AJHCqcCwcDnWcRDhqIP U4UQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKsibQNwb/sovDFJJvX6SnmX/o3gvqVReeqlQyhqq/ep8Us/4T2nyKL2DcAhq+2MQ== X-Received: by 10.66.65.133 with SMTP id x5mr25140718pas.108.1460280073947; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:180:3f7:f0cb:8c59:3928:4038? ([2601:646:180:3f7:f0cb:8c59:3928:4038]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q72sm28993864pfa.70.2016.04.10.02.21.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Mischa Spiegelmock In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:21:12 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> To: Jon Crowcroft X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Nick Feamster , Mitar , Arjuna Sathiaseelan Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:21:17 -0000 Funds to run a repository? What does hosting some PDFs run you these = days? I=E2=80=99m happy to host anything you want to publish on S3 or = archive.org in perpetuity.=20 -Mischa > On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:05 AM, Jon Crowcroft = wrote: >=20 > right - but "open access" unfortunately has several different > definitions - the lesat bad one is that the authors hold a copy on > their institutional repository (equiv of mit dspace for example).... >=20 > the best one is publish in palces which just put up open (free) access > for all anyhow - ideally usenix, fairly ideal is ACM where the author > can provide an open access (authorizer) link to the digital library > (which has two advantages - one the library may last longer than the > authors institution, and two, the costs are born by the ACM so the > author doesnt have to find funds for their institute to run a > repostory which in the GAIA Context seems sane)... >=20 > the worst "open" access is some of the paywalled publises will provide > an open access version if you pay them a massive (and usually > rediculous rentier/properteeringly high) fee - i'm increasingly > refuse to even review papers for such publishers=20 >=20 >> the EU funding regulations explicitly states that all published = papers=20 >> from >> EU funded projects should be available through open access.. >>=20 >> On 10 April 2016 at 09:38, Mitar wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi! >>>=20 >>> I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about = others: >>>=20 >>> https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Mitar >>>=20 >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan >>> wrote: >>>> kind words :) >>>>=20 >>>> we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ >>>>=20 >>>> On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi! >>>>>=20 >>>>> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and = Cambridge. >>>>> You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. = :-) >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Mitar >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> same as zero rating ;) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster=20 >> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> All of the papers are behind a paywall. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar = wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any = of=20 >> the >>>>>>>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer >>> Networks >>>>>>>> journal: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent?=20= >> But >>> I >>>>>>>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft = is >>>>>>>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and >>>>>>>> technical advancements in community networks and their=20 >> deployments. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to=20 >> integrate >>>>>>>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue=20 >> reading >>>>>>>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as >>> well. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Mitar >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> -Nick >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> gaia mailing list >>>>>>> gaia@irtf.org >>>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan >>>>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ >>>>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> -- >>>>> http://mitar.tnode.com/ >>>>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> -- >>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan >>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ >>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -- >>> http://mitar.tnode.com/ >>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> Arjuna Sathiaseelan >> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ >> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> gaia mailing list >> gaia@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia From nobody Sun Apr 10 03:16:52 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8522D12D114 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.196 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZCegyfFsWNJD for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 03:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk (mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.25.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A690F12B039 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 03:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandy.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.64.182]) by mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1apCIC-00058Z-Ju; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:08:32 +0100 From: Jon Crowcroft To: Mischa Spiegelmock In-reply-to: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Comments: In-reply-to Mischa Spiegelmock message dated "Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:21:12 -0700." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-ID: <35574.1460283401.1@sandy.cl.cam.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:16:42 +0100 Message-Id: Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:16:50 -0000 > Funds to run a repository? What does hosting some PDFs run you these day= s? > I=E2=80=99m happy to host anything you want to publish on S3 or archive.= org in = > perpetuity. Mischa actually, a repo has to have backup/archive, and high bandwidth (if it hosts popular content), plus typically redundency for high availability - cloud storage for significant amounts of stuff aint free......just my e-mail since 1976 exceeds the current free gmail = allocation (mostly due to the rediculous amount of .docx & .xlsx that admin people insist on frequently attaching, rather than using repos themselves and sending links:) , plus i've exceeded google drive and dropbox free amounts lots of times over just on my ownsome but yes, it isn't a lot of money, but it may be more than some places would like to spare, and the point was that the organisations like usenix and acm have done a lot of the work for us, is all...plus they are indexed/searchable and citable > = > > On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:05 AM, Jon Crowcroft = > wrote: > > > > right - but "open access" unfortunately has several different > > definitions - the lesat bad one is that the authors hold a copy on > > their institutional repository (equiv of mit dspace for example).... > > > > the best one is publish in palces which just put up open (free) access > > for all anyhow - ideally usenix, fairly ideal is ACM where the author > > can provide an open access (authorizer) link to the digital library > > (which has two advantages - one the library may last longer than the > > authors institution, and two, the costs are born by the ACM so the > > author doesnt have to find funds for their institute to run a > > repostory which in the GAIA Context seems sane)... > > > > the worst "open" access is some of the paywalled publises will provide > > an open access version if you pay them a massive (and usually > > rediculous rentier/properteeringly high) fee - i'm increasingly > > refuse to even review papers for such publishers > > > >> the EU funding regulations explicitly states that all published paper= s > >> from > >> EU funded projects should be available through open access.. > >> > >> On 10 April 2016 at 09:38, Mitar wrote: > >> > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about other= s: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper > >>> > >>> > >>> Mitar > >>> > >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > >>> wrote: > >>>> kind words :) > >>>> > >>>> we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ > >>>> > >>>> On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi! > >>>>> > >>>>> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge= . > >>>>> You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. := -) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Mitar > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> same as zero rating ;) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster > >> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All of the papers are behind a paywall. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrot= e: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any o= f > >> the > >>>>>>>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer > >>> Networks > >>>>>>>> journal: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P= 2 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? > >> But > >>> I > >>>>>>>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft i= s > >>>>>>>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and > >>>>>>>> technical advancements in community networks and their > >> deployments. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to > >> integrate > >>>>>>>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue > >> reading > >>>>>>>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as > >>> well. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Mitar > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Nick > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> gaia mailing list > >>>>>>> gaia@irtf.org > >>>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan > >>>>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > >>>>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> http://mitar.tnode.com/ > >>>>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan > >>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > >>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> http://mitar.tnode.com/ > >>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Arjuna Sathiaseelan > >> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > >> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gaia mailing list > >> gaia@irtf.org > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gaia mailing list > > gaia@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > = > = From nobody Sun Apr 10 03:35:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B25012B067 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 03:35:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLVtRcijgHAL for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 03:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.edu [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220FB12B04A for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 03:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw-3.ac.upc.es (gw-3.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.9]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3AAZ3Ni013517; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:35:03 +0200 Received: from [10.8.0.22] (gw-3-vpn-i.ac.upc.es [147.83.35.77]) by gw-3.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A6A3B3; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_483C4AF7-3B23-426A-9E72-F082586D88FB" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Leandro Navarro In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:35:01 +0200 Message-Id: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> To: gaia X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: Nick Feamster , Mitar , Arjuna Sathiaseelan Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:35:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_483C4AF7-3B23-426A-9E72-F082586D88FB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi, most papers of that issue should available under green open access.=20= For instance: Evaluation of mesh routing protocols for wireless community networks http://dsg.ac.upc.edu/eval-mesh-routing-wcn = (the paper and related = materials). In a few days we (with the editors of the issue) can find out about the = others and share with you a list of open access versions of the papers = of that special issue. As Arjuna says, for many reasons we have the = legal and moral obligation to publish open access the author=E2=80=99s = version (same content, less fancy format). The discussion can be lengthy = ... In another Elsevier issue we also described the guifi.net community = network from an organisational perspective, and here=E2=80=99s the green = OA version: (this time in three languages) http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-en.pdf http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-es.pdf http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-ca.pdf Best regards, Leandro. > On 10 Apr 2016, at 10:38, Mitar wrote: >=20 > Hi! >=20 > I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about others: >=20 > https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper = >=20 >=20 > Mitar >=20 > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > wrote: >> kind words :) >>=20 >> we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ >>=20 >> On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi! >>>=20 >>> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge. >>> You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-) >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Mitar >>>=20 >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan >>> wrote: >>>> same as zero rating ;) >>>>=20 >>>> On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster = >>>> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> All of the papers are behind a paywall. >>>>>=20 >>>>> "Global access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony. >>>>>=20 >>>>> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of = the >>>>>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer = Networks >>>>>> journal: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? = But I >>>>>> think articles very much address many questions the RFC draft is >>>>>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and >>>>>> technical advancements in community networks and their = deployments. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to = integrate >>>>>> information from those papers into the RFC. I will continue = reading >>>>>> the RFC myself and try to find cases where papers would help as = well. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Mitar >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> -Nick >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> gaia mailing list >>>>> gaia@irtf.org >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> -- >>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan >>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ >>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -- >>> http://mitar.tnode.com/ >>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> Arjuna Sathiaseelan >> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ >> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m >=20 > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia = -- Leandro Navarro http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro http://dsg.ac.upc.edu --Apple-Mail=_483C4AF7-3B23-426A-9E72-F082586D88FB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi, most papers of that issue should available under green = open access. 

For= instance:
Evaluation of mesh routing protocols for = wireless community networks
http://dsg.ac.upc.edu/eval-mesh-routing-wcn (the = paper and related materials).

In a few days we (with the editors of = the issue) can find out about the others and share with you a list of = open access versions of the papers of that special issue. As Arjuna = says, for many reasons we have the legal and moral obligation to publish = open access the author=E2=80=99s version (same content, less fancy = format). The discussion can be lengthy ...

In another Elsevier issue we also = described the guifi.net = community network from an organisational perspective, and here=E2=80=99s = the green OA version: (this time in three languages)
http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-en.pdf
http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-es.pdf
http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-ca.pdf

Best regards, = Leandro.

On 10 Apr 2016, at 10:38, Mitar = <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi!

I know that we published our paper online, I do = not know about others:

https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper


Mitar

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna = Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
kind words :)

we need more = of this: http://sci-hub.io/

On 10 = April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi!

But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and = Cambridge.
You two are in perfect position to liberate all = of them somehow. :-)


Mitar

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna = Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
same as zero rating = ;)

On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick Feamster = <feamster@cs.princeton.edu>
wrote:

All of = the papers are behind a paywall.

"Global = access to the Internet for all"... Ah, the irony.

On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> = wrote:

Hi!

While reading latest RFC = draft I noticed it does not cite any of the
papers from = the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks
journal:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P= 2

I suspect that maybe it was missed = because it is fairly recent? But I
think articles very = much address many questions the RFC draft is
trying to = address as well: what are recent organizational and
technical advancements in community networks and their = deployments.

I would urge editors to read = through papers and see how to integrate
information from = those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading
the RFC = myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well.


Mitar



-Nick

_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia




--Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
N4D Lab: = http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d



--http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m




--
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
N4D Lab: = http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d



-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

_______________________________________________
gaia mailing = list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

--
Leandro Navarro
http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro =  http://dsg.ac.upc.edu

= --Apple-Mail=_483C4AF7-3B23-426A-9E72-F082586D88FB-- From nobody Sun Apr 10 04:04:02 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAF412D139 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 04:04:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ahj6tOrkOWVb for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 04:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.ictp.it (smtp1.ictp.it [140.105.16.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8D712D128 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 04:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.ictp.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7D16097E08 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:03:55 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at smtp1.ictp.it Received: from smtp1.ictp.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.ictp.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with LMTP id HwrwppeO89X1 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:03:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Marcos-MacBook.homenet.telecomitalia.it (host126-232-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [87.2.232.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp1.ictp.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D14D6097E04 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:03:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:03:57 +0200 From: Marco Zennaro To: gaia@irtf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Airmail (351) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="570a331e_4f082ab1_21b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:04:00 -0000 --570a331e_4f082ab1_21b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline People are using GitHub to share/discuss papers. A good example is:=C2=A0= https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love Best, Marco Marco Zennaro, PhD // Research Officer // T/ICT4D Lab // ICTP // wireless= .ictp.it On April 10, 2016 at 12:35:28 PM, gaia-request=40irtf.org (gaia-request=40= irtf.org) wrote: Send gaia mailing list submissions to =20 gaia=40irtf.org =20 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit =20 https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia =20 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to =20 gaia-request=40irtf.org =20 You can reach the person managing the list at =20 gaia-owner=40irtf.org =20 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific =20 than =22Re: Contents of gaia digest...=22 =20 Today's Topics: =20 1. Re: Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks =20 journal (Jon Crowcroft) =20 2. Re: Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks =20 journal (Leandro Navarro) =20 > =46unds to run a repository=3F What does hosting some PD=46s run you th= ese days=3F =20 > I=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2m happy to host anything you want to publish o= n S3 or archive.org in =20 > perpetuity. =20 Mischa =20 actually, a repo has to have backup/archive, and high bandwidth (if it =20 hosts popular content), plus typically redundency for high =20 availability - cloud storage for significant amounts of stuff aint =20 free......just my e-mail since 1976 exceeds the current free gmail =20 allocation (mostly due to the rediculous amount of .docx & .xlsx that =20 admin people insist on frequently attaching, rather than using repos =20 themselves and sending links:) , plus i've exceeded google drive and =20 dropbox free amounts lots of times over just on my ownsome =20 but yes, it isn't a lot of money, but it may be more than some places =20 would like to spare, and the point was that the organisations like =20 usenix and acm have done a lot of the work for us, is all...plus they =20 are indexed/searchable and citable =20 > =20 > > On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:05 AM, Jon Crowcroft =20 > wrote: =20 > > =20 > > right - but =22open access=22 unfortunately has several different =20 > > definitions - the lesat bad one is that the authors hold a copy on =20 > > their institutional repository (equiv of mit dspace for example).... = =20 > > =20 > > the best one is publish in palces which just put up open (free) acces= s =20 > > for all anyhow - ideally usenix, fairly ideal is ACM where the author= =20 > > can provide an open access (authorizer) link to the digital library =20 > > (which has two advantages - one the library may last longer than the = =20 > > authors institution, and two, the costs are born by the ACM so the =20 > > author doesnt have to find funds for their institute to run a =20 > > repostory which in the GAIA Context seems sane)... =20 > > =20 > > the worst =22open=22 access is some of the paywalled publises will pr= ovide =20 > > an open access version if you pay them a massive (and usually =20 > > rediculous rentier/properteeringly high) fee - i'm increasingly =20 > > refuse to even review papers for such publishers =20 > > =20 > >> the EU funding regulations explicitly states that all published pape= rs =20 > >> from =20 > >> EU funded projects should be available through open access.. =20 > >> =20 > >> On 10 April 2016 at 09:38, Mitar wrote: =20 > >> =20 > >>> Hi=21 =20 > >>> =20 > >>> I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about othe= rs: =20 > >>> =20 > >>> https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper =20 > >>> =20 > >>> =20 > >>> Mitar =20 > >>> =20 > >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan =20 > >>> wrote: =20 > >>>> kind words :) =20 > >>>> =20 > >>>> we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ =20 > >>>> =20 > >>>> On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: =20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> Hi=21 =20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridg= e. =20 > >>>>> You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. = :-) =20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> Mitar =20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan =20 > >>>>> wrote: =20 > >>>>>> same as zero rating ;) =20 > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick =46eamster =20 > >> =20 > >>>>>> wrote: =20 > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> All of the papers are behind a paywall. =20 > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> =22Global access to the Internet for all=22... Ah, the irony. =20 > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar w= rote: =20 > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> Hi=21 =20 > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> While reading latest R=46C draft I noticed it does not cite an= y of =20 > >> the =20 > >>>>>>>> papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer =20 > >>> Networks =20 > >>>>>>>> journal: =20 > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/= P2 =20 > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent= =3F =20 > >> But =20 > >>> I =20 > >>>>>>>> think articles very much address many questions the R=46C draf= t is =20 > >>>>>>>> trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and = =20 > >>>>>>>> technical advancements in community networks and their =20 > >> deployments. =20 > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to =20 > >> integrate =20 > >>>>>>>> information from those papers into the R=46C. I will continue = =20 > >> reading =20 > >>>>>>>> the R=46C myself and try to find cases where papers would help= as =20 > >>> well. =20 > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> Mitar =20 > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> -Nick =20 > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F =20 > >>>>>>> gaia mailing list =20 > >>>>>>> gaia=40irtf.org =20 > >>>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia =20 > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> -- =20 > >>>>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan =20 > >>>>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/ =20 > >>>>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d =20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> -- =20 > >>>>> http://mitar.tnode.com/ =20 > >>>>> https://twitter.com/mitar=5Fm =20 > >>>> =20 > >>>> =20 > >>>> =20 > >>>> =20 > >>>> -- =20 > >>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan =20 > >>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/ =20 > >>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d =20 > >>> =20 > >>> =20 > >>> =20 > >>> -- =20 > >>> http://mitar.tnode.com/ =20 > >>> https://twitter.com/mitar=5Fm =20 > >>> =20 > >> =20 > >> =20 > >> =20 > >> -- =20 > >> Arjuna Sathiaseelan =20 > >> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/ =20 > >> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d =20 > >> =20 > >> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F = =20 > >> gaia mailing list =20 > >> gaia=40irtf.org =20 > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia =20 > >> =20 > > =20 > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F = =20 > > gaia mailing list =20 > > gaia=40irtf.org =20 > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia =20 > =20 > =20 Hi, most papers of that issue should available under green open access.=C2= =A0 =46or instance: Evaluation of mesh routing protocols for wireless community networks http://dsg.ac.upc.edu/eval-mesh-routing-wcn=C2=A0(the paper and related m= aterials). In a few days we (with the editors of the issue) can find out about the o= thers and share with you a list of open access versions of the papers of = that special issue. As Arjuna says, for many reasons we have the legal an= d moral obligation to publish open access the author=E2=80=99s version (s= ame content, less fancy format). The discussion can be lengthy ... In another Elsevier issue we also described the guifi.net community netwo= rk from an organisational perspective, and here=E2=80=99s the green OA ve= rsion: (this time in three languages) http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-en.pdf http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-es.pdf http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/crowds-guifi-ca.pdf Best regards, Leandro. On 10 Apr 2016, at 10:38, Mitar wrote: Hi=21 I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about others: https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper Mitar On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: kind words :) we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/ On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar wrote: Hi=21 But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge. You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-) Mitar On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: same as zero rating ;) On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick =46eamster wrote: All of the papers are behind a paywall. =22Global access to the Internet for all=22... Ah, the irony. On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar wrote: Hi=21 While reading latest R=46C draft I noticed it does not cite any of the papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent=3F But I think articles very much address many questions the R=46C draft is trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and technical advancements in community networks and their deployments. I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate information from those papers into the R=46C. I will continue reading the R=46C myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well. Mitar -Nick =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F gaia mailing list gaia=40irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar=5Fm -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d --=C2=A0 http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar=5Fm =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F gaia mailing list gaia=40irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia -- Leandro Navarro http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro =C2=A0http://dsg.ac.upc.edu =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F =20 gaia mailing list =20 gaia=40irtf.org =20 https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia =20 --570a331e_4f082ab1_21b Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
People are using G= itHub to share/discuss papers. A good example is: https://github.com/papers-= we-love/papers-we-love

Best,
Marco


Marco Zennaro, PhD /= / Research Officer // T/ICT4D Lab // ICTP // wireless.ictp.it

On April 10, 2016 at 12:35:28 = PM, gaia-request=40irtf.org (gaia-request=40irtf.org) wrote:

Send gaia mailing list submissions to
gaia=40irtf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gaia-request=40irtf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
gaia-owner=40irtf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than =22Re: Contents of gaia digest...=22
Today's Topics:

1. Re: Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks
journal (Jon Crowcroft)
2. Re: Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks
journal (Leandro Navarro)
> =46unds to run a repository=3F What does hosting= some PD=46s run you these days=3F
> I=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2m happy to host anything you want to pu= blish on S3 or archive.org in =20
> perpetuity.

Mischa

actually, a repo has to have backup/archive, and high bandwidth (if i= t
hosts popular content), plus typically redundency for high
availability - cloud storage for significant amounts of stuff aint
free......just my e-mail since 1976 exceeds the current free gmail =20
allocation (mostly due to the rediculous amount of .docx & .xlsx = that
admin people insist on frequently attaching, rather than using repos
themselves and sending links:) , plus i've exceeded google drive and
dropbox free amounts lots of times over just on my ownsome

but yes, it isn't a lot of money, but it may be more than some places=
would like to spare, and the point was that the organisations like
usenix and acm have done a lot of the work for us, is all...plus they=
are indexed/searchable and citable

> =20
> > On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:05 AM, Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcrof= t=40cl.cam.ac.uk> =20
> wrote:
> >
> > right - but =22open access=22 unfortunately has several dif= ferent
> > definitions - the lesat bad one is that the authors hold a = copy on
> > their institutional repository (equiv of mit dspace for exa= mple)....
> >
> > the best one is publish in palces which just put up open (f= ree) access
> > for all anyhow - ideally usenix, fairly ideal is ACM where = the author
> > can provide an open access (authorizer) link to the digital= library
> > (which has two advantages - one the library may last longer= than the
> > authors institution, and two, the costs are born by the ACM= so the
> > author doesnt have to find funds for their institute to run= a
> > repostory which in the GAIA Context seems sane)...
> >
> > the worst =22open=22 access is some of the paywalled publis= es will provide
> > an open access version if you pay them a massive (and usual= ly
> > rediculous rentier/properteeringly high) fee - i'm increas= ingly
> > refuse to even review papers for such publishers
> >
> >> the EU funding regulations explicitly states that all p= ublished papers
> >> from
> >> EU funded projects should be available through open acc= ess..
> >>
> >> On 10 April 2016 at 09:38, Mitar <mmitar=40gmail.com= > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi=21
> >>>
> >>> I know that we published our paper online, I do not= know about others:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mitar
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseela= n
> >>> <arjuna.sathiaseelan=40cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>> kind words :)
> >>>>
> >>>> we need more of this: http://sci-hub.io/
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar <mmitar=40g= mail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi=21
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from = Princeton and Cambridge.
> >>>>> You two are in perfect position to liberate= all of them somehow. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mitar
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sat= hiaseelan
> >>>>> <arjuna.sathiaseelan=40cl.cam.ac.uk> = wrote:
> >>>>>> same as zero rating ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick =46eams= ter
> >> <feamster=40cs.princeton.edu>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All of the papers are behind a payw= all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =22Global access to the Internet fo= r all=22... Ah, the irony.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, = Mitar <mmitar=40gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi=21
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While reading latest R=46C draf= t I noticed it does not cite any of
> >> the
> >>>>>>>> papers from the Community Netwo= rks special issue of Computer
> >>> Networks
> >>>>>>>> journal:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/sc= ience/journal/13891286/93/part/P2
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I suspect that maybe it was mis= sed because it is fairly recent=3F
> >> But
> >>> I
> >>>>>>>> think articles very much addres= s many questions the R=46C draft is
> >>>>>>>> trying to address as well: what= are recent organizational and
> >>>>>>>> technical advancements in commu= nity networks and their
> >> deployments.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would urge editors to read th= rough papers and see how to
> >> integrate
> >>>>>>>> information from those papers i= nto the R=46C. I will continue
> >> reading
> >>>>>>>> the R=46C myself and try to fin= d cases where papers would help as
> >>> well.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Mitar
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Nick
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
> >>>>>>> gaia mailing list
> >>>>>>> gaia=40irtf.org
> >>>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listin= fo/gaia
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> >>>>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas= 2330/
> >>>>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2= 330/n4d
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> >>>>> https://twitter.com/mitar=5Fm
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> >>>> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/
> >>>> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> >>> https://twitter.com/mitar=5Fm
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> >> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/
> >> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d
> >>
> >> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F
> >> gaia mailing list
> >> gaia=40irtf.org
> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >>
> >
> > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F
> > gaia mailing list
> > gaia=40irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> =20
> =20

Hi, most papers of that issue should available under green open access. 

=46or instance:
Evaluation of mesh routing protocols for wireless community networks
http://dsg.ac.upc.edu/eval-mesh-routing-wcn&nbs= p;(the paper and related materials).

In a few days we (with the editors of the issue) can find out about the others and share with you a list of open access versions of the papers of that special issue. As Arjuna says, for many reasons we have the legal and moral obligation to publish open access the author=E2=80=99s version (same content, less fancy format). Th= e discussion can be lengthy ...

In another Elsevier issue we also described the guifi.net community n= etwork from an organisational perspective, and here=E2=80=99s the green OA version: (this time in three languages)

Best regards, Leandro.

On 10 Apr 2016, at 10:38, Mitar <mmitar=40gmail.com> wrote:

Hi=21

I know that we published our paper online, I do not know about others:

https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-paper<= /a>


Mitar

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
<
arjuna.sathiaseelan=40cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
kind words :)=

we need more of this: h= ttp://sci-hub.io/

On 10 April 2016 at 09:23, Mitar <mmitar=40gmail.com> wrote:

Hi=21

But I am glad to see e-mail addresses from Princeton and Cambridge.
You two are in perfect position to liberate all of them somehow. :-)


Mitar

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan=40cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
same as zero rating ;)

On 10 April 2016 at 06:23, Nick =46eamster <feamster=40cs.princeton.edu&g= t;
wrote:

All of the papers are behind a paywall.

=22Global access to the Internet for all=22... Ah, the irony.

On April 10, 2016 12:34:03 AM EDT, Mitar <mmitar=40gmail.com> wrote:

Hi=21

While reading latest R=46C draft I noticed it does not cite any of the
papers from the Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks
journal:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891= 286/93/part/P2

I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent=3F But I
think articles very much address many questions the R=46C draft is
trying to address as well: what are recent organizational and
technical advancements in community networks and their deployments.

I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate
information from those papers into the R=46C. I will continue reading
the R=46C myself and try to find cases where papers would help as well.


Mitar



-Nick

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
gaia mailing list
gaia=40irtf.org=
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia




--
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/
N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d



--
http://mitar.tnode= .com/
https://twitter.com/mitar=5Fm




--
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/
N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/=7Eas2330/n4d



-- 
htt= p://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar=5Fm

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F<= /span>
gaia mailing list
gaia= =40irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

--
Leandro Navarro
http://pe= ople.ac.upc.edu/leandro  http://dsg.ac.upc.edu

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
gaia mailing list
gaia=40irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
--570a331e_4f082ab1_21b-- From nobody Sun Apr 10 10:36:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C375B12B052 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:36:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mnPkolVdbKvi for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net (lb2-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net [194.109.24.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 761D112B04D for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xs9.xs4all.nl ([194.109.21.9]) by smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net with ESMTP id ghc21s0070BlZ8J01hc2jq; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:36:04 +0200 Received: from xs9.xs4all.nl (IDENT:28329@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs9.xs4all.nl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id u3AHa2Mn015278; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:36:02 +0200 Received: from localhost (becha@localhost) by xs9.xs4all.nl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id u3AHa1c4015043; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:36:01 +0200 Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:36:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Vesna Manojlovic To: Leandro Navarro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) X-NCC-RegId: eu.zz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1841432853-2034201083-1460309762=:22289" Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Nick Feamster , Mitar , Arjuna Sathiaseelan Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 17:36:08 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1841432853-2034201083-1460309762=:22289 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Dear Leandro, all, On Sun, 10 Apr 2016, Leandro Navarro wrote: > Hi, most papers of that issue should available under green open access.  > In a few days we (with the editors of the issue) can find out about the > others and share with you a list of open access versions of the papers > of that special issue. Thank you, I would appreciate that very much! I am maintaining a collection of relevant documents to (my definition of) Mesh Networking (including community wirless networks, comunity ISP, decentralized technologies etc) here: https://wiki.techinc.nl/index.php/MeshNet I will include the links to the open-access versions that you point out to, too. Thanks again, Vesna -- community, cooperation, commons, squirrels // http://becha.home.xs4all.nl nature, anarchy, utopia, anthropocene, collapse // https://lists.puscii.nl/wws/arc/uncivilization --1841432853-2034201083-1460309762=:22289-- From nobody Sun Apr 10 10:53:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454DD12B05F for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STdsI3PFjW7X for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x242.google.com (mail-ig0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 434C112B053 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x242.google.com with SMTP id nt3so8684258igb.0 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=tOZZhxyPYsRhV38Ki/ndomm7NL9e8GcfB8v/kmORgIQ=; b=wrEDf7lVh0xwTga/aoiO9s9Tc1xSciSyK+L5LzAR9FFLMpBY4OuHZVZIgy+T5BeMjR JS/zY2wDpxVAm+p8ziTv+HJoYwAIP62WV0B7JfsyWgvpOzuNntNZrinAT8UMZ+p7J5qZ d3sah2xVqMN6DHlI9+odpTDnpyEV4RUrNzAB3Hmi+jXFovzNwFKmPd7LMTxQ94RiOw47 4r4zKx0XlC/6SJXLFyy7vCE0VEsyDxE2QuXOiUMIP0gLhWd+mBg29FLmE8OI1jVeNYaO Jm1UOW3tTkK4CpmpMUjb9EOXRg8a7iOOqwJ/hzUfXJ/j6dspn4ApSVopQXoy9Hh0Jn0v aQEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=tOZZhxyPYsRhV38Ki/ndomm7NL9e8GcfB8v/kmORgIQ=; b=IqgH3Woc3hHlvxoqULoIB1fosbAE/mHJZrbOGWXLdVw+6xxqV1Hvz5GLC+sdBaW6ji gxn8TweVDcXe52WxH6pGo9G6KeBmDUQzA5gV/yyMXPfsYDJOflAyCMIZWS3gc2AUBebH fFh7IYhFUx1cVWKGBDMqJxTI4twl2dINOvfjT7Oy+6/fPp8U0tpZMyScq+zH/qIDKAJV ISRyZWs68UGybspkVxkbSAIA+fZu3aHUZFy+mxM6DpSe1f2qAV/4hI5ZU/ICSpSIDpt/ b/UF1MgLUfeA8XOOBP6XteeLjKiMHbIga7vSZCkGWwNrlaf+zbgLqv87FZKtom440rB4 VOiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLnitQE0ye4dv97qKTZmXZ6/jPBddAOrCdKKS6yR10AuO8c1ff11RpF4zSUOFG8JHEqxcM6xyow5lNouQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.36.38 with SMTP id n6mr14569238igj.31.1460310808685; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0E59EFE0-7CD8-488F-BB8B-26F48F3D78DE@cs.princeton.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:28 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Vesna Manojlovic Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Nick Feamster , Arjuna Sathiaseelan , Leandro Navarro Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 17:53:32 -0000 Hi! We could just ask all authors to upload their papers to arxiv.org. Mitar On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vesna Manojlovic wrote: > Dear Leandro, all, > > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016, Leandro Navarro wrote: > >> Hi, most papers of that issue should available under green open access. > > >> In a few days we (with the editors of the issue) can find out about the >> others and share with you a list of open access versions of the papers of >> that special issue. > > > Thank you, I would appreciate that very much! > > I am maintaining a collection of relevant documents to (my definition of) > Mesh Networking (including community wirless networks, comunity ISP, > decentralized technologies etc) here: > > https://wiki.techinc.nl/index.php/MeshNet > > I will include the links to the open-access versions that you point out to, > too. > > Thanks again, > Vesna > > > -- > community, cooperation, commons, squirrels // > http://becha.home.xs4all.nl > nature, anarchy, utopia, anthropocene, collapse // > https://lists.puscii.nl/wws/arc/uncivilization -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Sun Apr 10 16:53:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F5612D7D4 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:53:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lithWsgZn3p for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CBBF12D7D1 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id g185so189382496ioa.2 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:53:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=ncDQFrv7tkHqnce+53oLkTUDwhvfVwK5D2OQVWs6CcQ=; b=GSKi2KIq78lt4FSlVN2i99pv1JNsaAikejQSI5cBg0fgWzOmpwLiOa9kusW3r0hsJy zYmOUsB1m9c9kid4ILYjkhtoleKYchNgA10ugINopZibwQ8+hadVtzHuS81idCLhGwqG 6v23D94cjMiWiNd7SqB0Yeiryheh/17jWcm/xfRF6Gixa4HlS6lHqM+3SUtwfgH4KE2o A0Q1zKpk+bxp8zDqSGuUHNArshU/cnlyBWmbVWe/N0wjTta87OHztoZB3SrmWfl7Lcya j6p3JIFlojDDXCQLIBTr0meKgJEU1kFY7ebpAe1aZykW4dFx1EscDf+uiMu/1TKWdojV gy9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=ncDQFrv7tkHqnce+53oLkTUDwhvfVwK5D2OQVWs6CcQ=; b=grGg8EXkx8LxgwZE4IlOw/BV7KTuiCVjvoZn8kmpCW4vurxPt9Mzu9XLDqiSKQwbBg TZ2qDbCYoUtn9w/ef9cQIeRkQt0KbRWYN3RfNpMHEze9BaMk+YO1Z/8iG+v3cer8CGAd dnBxvx4X278J1sH+jdh+LfDREJivU43BdIhpk8Lx+hx6xWPcj4Pg9kMnntibfUL20raR zI1gs48d2vuQwR13H8cvc2/zpTqz3na9OVzw9fitcPtvS27t0dN61I0MUv72fZqfYUJ5 b76EsTYtIOgHIuoKykrvb3ALlmXE724Gskzc+4XTLjGmYKrvJSsI7h/+raT6yOh23WVN QIKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK5prbc8P/mllGFDIMkFl18REjX+m+UypfteQTb3PyH8+P1GY6C43BPPJ1YMLVkUMVZevYAxnikQxsXyA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.173.69 with SMTP id w66mr22437051ioe.182.1460332416529; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:53:36 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: gaia Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:53:40 -0000 Hi! I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan slovenija (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some feedback on the draft. I am glad people are working on it. My list of comments is in no particular order, mostly in order of reading. I am sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the draft. Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From our network and from my experience talking to other community networks, I would claim that many share also much more altruistic motivations. For example, our whole network is build around principle that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at home (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us will share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course there are other motivations why people participate, and everyone has a different mix of those motivations, but I definitely think that the list should be extended to include: - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that alternative is possible) - building a new type of commons - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a say in operations - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the community (eg. http://tidepools.co/) - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other extreme situations - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own hands An example of another network describing itself with much more of what I am writing than what is currently on the list: https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I remembered without much thinking) for many community networks. I do not think the list in section 4.2 can ever be comprehensive, but I was really taken aback from its economy-centric bias at the moment. Most community networks do not operate on that level. It is of course present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are doing it. Section 4.4, technologies employed: "Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some villages." Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages mentioned? Optical systems can also be used elsewhere. Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially in high-density urban environments because of no interference. Section 4.5, typical scenarios: I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any network I know of outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Community networks maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow and spread over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries. Section 5, classification of alternative networks: Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited perspective. I would claim that most alternative networks go beyond just incentives, but exist because of various beliefs: about how networks should operate, who should have control over them, the importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc. Section 5.1, community networks: As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list and I think you should include at least ones I listed above. But probably you should do a survey and ask community networks what are their goals and motivations, instead of trying to guess them. (If you have done such a survey, I would love to see data.) Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default. Typical scenarios: all Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be small, city only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are focused on one region, some are distributed around larger region, connected with VPN together. "There is a shared platform (e.g. a web site) where a minimum coordination is performed. This way, community members with the right permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control over the overall operation of the network (e.g. IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in the network)." This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community networks with much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible. Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how control over the routing of the network has anything with the existence of the shared platform? In wlan slovenija network we also use a web shared platform, but that platform does not control the network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about use of IP space, and learning how to configure their nodes. So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core network's resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries, etc.) are managed. "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the previous and the new extent of the network." Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with "autonomous system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) So what exactly is the property which differentiates community networks? Maybe there is none. Maybe community networks are simply trying to (re)build the Internet, but this time having infrastructure owned by participants, which are not just consumers, but are participating. I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and that people own the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This should be more clearly explained. So it is not so much about technology in community networks, but about who owns and controls equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates the network growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers, participants, people gets blurred. "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has contributed. Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for backbone nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track ownership of equipment, because they do not care about ownership if it is operating according to common principles. And if it is not, it should not be in the network no matter who owns the equipment. Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party stakeholders "VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role." I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section really do that. In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/ movement is listed, but no shares or money or any incentive structure is in place there for people to share their extra Internet connectivity. So I would change this paragraph to: "VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. But VNOs can also operate on gift-economy principles, where participants contribute to the commons by sharing their resources knowing that this benefits all." Section 6.2.1, Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless links "Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who design, deploy and manage wireless networks." Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of scale and mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is so popular in alternative networks. You can get a device for $10. And you can get this because everyone is producing this hardware, and the hardware is not just made for the alternative networks. In contrast, traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for them. Even if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number of WiFi routers produced for the global market. Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that needed? Why properties and descriptions of those standards should be in this draft? They belong to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In this draft we can just reference those standards. Like what of all this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general text which is true for any use: "802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for long range rural communications in TV white space frequencies and first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16 (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8 MHz channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 100 km is possible with special scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 is specifically customized for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined for more distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots destined for nearby CPEs. Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS) and a connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation spectrum database. Once the base station receives the allowed TV channels, it communicates a preferred operating white space TV channel with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a coexistence mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations aware of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same network." Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols "A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]." Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/, which is far from the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in practice, ETX metric is used, which is not even mentioned in RFC3626. Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many networks, and it is even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you want to include a routing protocol for alternative networks with IETF standard, you should include this one for sure. Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be some special prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs. But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes will be much further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just this distance already influences that the users of open network are prioritized less (they have higher packet loss, lower bitrate, which is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate). In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself on different frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh networks ran everything (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs on the same channel, but with 5 GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band devices this is often separated now. Section 7.3., services provided What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the Internet and networks in general? This looks pretty useless section which would not inform anyone reading this draft of anything about alternative networks. If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized services developed just for community/alternative networks: - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices - Community radio/TV stations What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet access. For example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless communities which made networks in villages just to be able to play games. Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies "Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations." That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles which are important in many other alternative networks. So the question how informative this sentence is, because for some maybe this is true, for some it is not, and some probably are build just around this. Others probably address this with innovative solutions like internal file servers. At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs (https://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To me is unclear. Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft: https://rhizomatica.org/ http://www.servalproject.org/ http://villagetelco.org/ Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Mon Apr 11 01:23:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403B512E8BE for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:23:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eeErfKrMB9Fp for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2EF612E8BB for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id e190so144266794lfe.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:23:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=FPGt81K4tYj8C93aRjKtojpxmTZfgrZ8Q9fbm+cXR/0=; b=WA33Hz6HQs+MUHO6AM3uzGue27BGCPPeBWsPGIREEjEDZ6LA3Tx+ff5oGTwqunXLbl pxiBfldtYVKxIYvq8/XXZZCYbEUOu8aqotVs/F561LPD4F3XH1LWANplGn8UR9Vd2uAb RtOHB+hbTjRrD0SjiFLKMbf5vutasdekg1WrDHf91T47KWxrn0RZoFMS2jBfeW3oL9eC ENB3nJ/ZVfvJcnbs6L1nS1UUL4VIhNWhAAVX0NMRYQGnCH+iZif3w0QKr4SF62UwQUQr 2IS1NOsN/BnkwzhRP1/bu+OqoLDMkJLidm8ZPLJO/3oJ4MB/erHK9fBdIngstKBgUCsV RaIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=FPGt81K4tYj8C93aRjKtojpxmTZfgrZ8Q9fbm+cXR/0=; b=IC76rFtSKN7udMmnRuaijMBWV4PHKbbGdDDP8RYqfmCw+xkRdolTGRGiiH5Nq+QKZn 8wmJZrKuoEf02lKAZVNB/HRF55qFnELoz4DZIAbis4hKHyqQ83+mpgikOLf93YoK63pw ak8h0zrfYMoMOnLToS7gqTR43ijaSIJj/hKWBFnqlLvR4WqVIn0httx1kf6E8PCa4+Go /8u30GmXoDEt22DEdaq9jVugLJt9pg79kyl7tYAqrbS20TWFCTD6niyzWjEuPk2Fyk0y TbzKk9VR+71e0fmGGUoUGndJFwRn8d9prj+VsGc3gguUQeIg3k7gs90wSrQVRqdsy7sL kngA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKIP+tJYvdmhcsvTZ/vsxZ3kITrUZO9zR5IM6caJnKOY8Tp8kWTkj0HjVdHgfVANsLMJ8MSqsfGI1Fz6w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.17.67 with SMTP id g64mr8511272lfi.112.1460362988573; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:23:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 04:23:08 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rboOmauDwoB6fc-dPZVXfnwiA38 Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11407b2a2d5bc9053031417f Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:23:16 -0000 --001a11407b2a2d5bc9053031417f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 we did the same thing here with the publicaccesswifi deployment in Nottingham couple of years ago - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/docs/dev12.pdf this eg is already in the draft. I think most of the reasoning you have given should already be in the draft.. arjuna On 11 Apr 2016 00:53, "Mitar" wrote: > Hi! > > I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan > slovenija (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some > feedback on the draft. I am glad people are working on it. My list of > comments is in no particular order, mostly in order of reading. I am > sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the draft. > > Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From > our network and from my experience talking to other community > networks, I would claim that many share also much more altruistic > motivations. For example, our whole network is build around principle > that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at home > (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us > will share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course > there are other motivations why people participate, and everyone has a > different mix of those motivations, but I definitely think that the > list should be extended to include: > > - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism > - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, > anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that > alternative is possible) > - building a new type of commons > - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a > say in operations > - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the > community (eg. http://tidepools.co/) > - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other > extreme situations > - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, > empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own > hands > > An example of another network describing itself with much more of what > I am writing than what is currently on the list: > https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh > > All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I > remembered without much thinking) for many community networks. I do > not think the list in section 4.2 can ever be comprehensive, but I was > really taken aback from its economy-centric bias at the moment. Most > community networks do not operate on that level. It is of course > present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are > doing it. > > Section 4.4, technologies employed: > > "Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some > villages." > > Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages > mentioned? Optical systems can also be used elsewhere. > > Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no > fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially > in high-density urban environments because of no interference. > > Section 4.5, typical scenarios: > > I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any > network I know of outgrow and changed through time inside all these > categories. Community networks maybe start somewhere (like urban or > rural area), but then they grow and spread over the whole country, > then start connecting with other countries. > > Section 5, classification of alternative networks: > > Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited > perspective. I would claim that most alternative networks go beyond > just incentives, but exist because of various beliefs: about how > networks should operate, who should have control over them, the > importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc. > > Section 5.1, community networks: > > As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list > and I think you should include at least ones I listed above. But > probably you should do a survey and ask community networks what are > their goals and motivations, instead of trying to guess them. (If you > have done such a survey, I would love to see data.) > > Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default. > > Typical scenarios: all > > Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be > small, city only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are > focused on one region, some are distributed around larger region, > connected with VPN together. > > "There is a shared platform (e.g. a web site) where a minimum > coordination is performed. This way, community members with the right > permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control > over the overall operation of the network (e.g. IP addresses, > routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in > the network)." > > This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community > networks with much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with > IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible. > > Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how > control over the routing of the network has anything with the > existence of the shared platform? In wlan slovenija network we also > use a web shared platform, but that platform does not control the > network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even > without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about > use of IP space, and learning how to configure their nodes. > > So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core > network's resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries, > etc.) are managed. > > "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the > system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new > segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall > characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity > to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to > the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the > previous and the new extent of the network." > > Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with > "autonomous system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) > > So what exactly is the property which differentiates community > networks? Maybe there is none. Maybe community networks are simply > trying to (re)build the Internet, but this time having infrastructure > owned by participants, which are not just consumers, but are > participating. > > I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and > that people own the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This > should be more clearly explained. So it is not so much about > technology in community networks, but about who owns and controls > equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates the network > growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers, > participants, people gets blurred. > > "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she > has contributed. > > Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for > backbone nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track > ownership of equipment, because they do not care about ownership if it > is operating according to common principles. And if it is not, it > should not be in the network no matter who owns the equipment. > > Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party > stakeholders > > "VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an > incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for > sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who > in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role." > > I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section > really do that. In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/ > movement is listed, but no shares or money or any incentive structure > is in place there for people to share their extra Internet > connectivity. > > So I would change this paragraph to: > > "VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, > thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users > get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by > the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. But > VNOs can also operate on gift-economy principles, where participants > contribute to the commons by sharing their resources knowing that this > benefits all." > > Section 6.2.1, Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless links > > "Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who > design, deploy and manage wireless networks." > > Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of > scale and mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is > so popular in alternative networks. You can get a device for $10. And > you can get this because everyone is producing this hardware, and the > hardware is not just made for the alternative networks. In contrast, > traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for them. Even > if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number > of WiFi routers produced for the global market. > > Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that > needed? Why properties and descriptions of those standards should be > in this draft? They belong to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In > this draft we can just reference those standards. Like what of all > this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general text > which is true for any use: > > "802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for > long range rural communications in TV white space frequencies and > first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16 > (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio > ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8 > MHz channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the > default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 100 km is possible with special > scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 is specifically customized > for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined for more > distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots > destined for nearby CPEs. > > Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS) > and a connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation > spectrum database. Once the base station receives the allowed TV > channels, it communicates a preferred operating white space TV channel > with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a coexistence > mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations aware > of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same > network." > > Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols > > "A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State > Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]." > > Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/, > which is far from the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in > practice, ETX metric is used, which is not even mentioned in RFC3626. > > Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many > networks, and it is even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you > want to include a routing protocol for alternative networks with IETF > standard, you should include this one for sure. > > Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources > > It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be > some special prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs. > But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes > will be much further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just > this distance already influences that the users of open network are > prioritized less (they have higher packet loss, lower bitrate, which > is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate). > > In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself > on different frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh > networks ran everything (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs > on the same channel, but with 5 GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band > devices this is often separated now. > > Section 7.3., services provided > > What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the > Internet and networks in general? This looks pretty useless section > which would not inform anyone reading this draft of anything about > alternative networks. > > If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized > services developed just for community/alternative networks: > > - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN > - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org > - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ > - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms > - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries > - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices > - Community radio/TV stations > > What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet > access. For example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless > communities which made networks in villages just to be able to play > games. > > Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies > > "Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in > many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations." > > That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles > which are important in many other alternative networks. So the > question how informative this sentence is, because for some maybe this > is true, for some it is not, and some probably are build just around > this. Others probably address this with innovative solutions like > internal file servers. > > At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs > (https://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To > me is unclear. > > Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft: > > https://rhizomatica.org/ > http://www.servalproject.org/ > http://villagetelco.org/ > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > --001a11407b2a2d5bc9053031417f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

we did the same thing here with the publicaccesswifi deploym= ent in Nottingham couple of years ago -
http://www.cl.ca= m.ac.uk/~as2330/docs/dev12.pdf

this eg is already in the draft.

I think most of the reasoning you have given should already = be in the draft..

arjuna

On 11 Apr 2016 00:53, "Mitar" <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan
slovenija (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some
feedback on the draft. I am glad people are working on it. My list of
comments is in no particular order, mostly in order of reading. I am
sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the draft.

Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From
our network and from my experience talking to other community
networks, I would claim that many share also much more altruistic
motivations. For example, our whole network is build around principle
that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at home
(FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us
will share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course
there are other motivations why people participate, and everyone has a
different mix of those motivations, but I definitely think that the
list should be extended to include:

- free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism
- various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees,
anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that
alternative is possible)
- building a new type of commons
- not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a
say in operations
- provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the
community (eg. http://tidepools.co/)
- provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other
extreme situations
- wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others,
empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own
hands

An example of another network describing itself with much more of what
I am writing than what is currently on the list:
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh

All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I
remembered without much thinking) for many community networks. I do
not think the list in section 4.2 can ever be comprehensive, but I was
really taken aback from its economy-centric bias at the moment. Most
community networks do not operate on that level. It is of course
present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are
doing it.

Section 4.4, technologies employed:

"Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some=
villages."

Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages mentioned? Optical systems can also be used elsewhere.

Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no
fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially
in high-density urban environments because of no interference.

Section 4.5, typical scenarios:

I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any
network I know of outgrow and changed through time inside all these
categories. Community networks maybe start somewhere (like urban or
rural area), but then they grow and spread over the whole country,
then start connecting with other countries.

Section 5, classification of alternative networks:

Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited
perspective. I would claim that most alternative networks go beyond
just incentives, but exist because of various beliefs: about how
networks should operate, who should have control over them, the
importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc.

Section 5.1, community networks:

As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list
and I think you should include at least ones I listed above. But
probably you should do a survey and ask community networks what are
their goals and motivations, instead of trying to guess them. (If you
have done such a survey, I would love to see data.)

Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default.<= br>
Typical scenarios: all

Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be
small, city only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are
focused on one region, some are distributed around larger region,
connected with VPN together.

"There is a shared platform (e.g.=C2=A0 a web site) where a minimum coordination is performed.=C2=A0 This way, community members with the right=
permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control
over the overall operation of the network (e.g.=C2=A0 IP addresses,
routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in
the network)."

This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community
networks with much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with
IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible.

Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see = how
control over the routing of the network has anything with the
existence of the shared platform? In wlan slovenija network we also
use a web shared platform, but that platform does not control the
network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even
without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about
use of IP space, and learning how to configure their nodes.

So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core
network's resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries,
etc.) are managed.

"A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the
system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new
segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall
characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity
to further extend the network.=C2=A0 Once these link segments are joined to=
the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the
previous and the new extent of the network."

Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment"= with
"autonomous system" and "community network" with "= Internet". :-)

So what exactly is the property which differentiates community
networks? Maybe there is none. Maybe community networks are simply
trying to (re)build the Internet, but this time having infrastructure
owned by participants, which are not just consumers, but are
participating.

I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and
that people own the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This
should be more clearly explained. So it is not so much about
technology in community networks, but about who owns and controls
equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates the network
growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers,
participants, people gets blurred.

"In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has contributed.

Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for
backbone nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track
ownership of equipment, because they do not care about ownership if it
is operating according to common principles. And if it is not, it
should not be in the network no matter who owns the equipment.

Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
stakeholders

"VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an
incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for
sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who
in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role."

I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section
really do that. In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/
movement is listed, but no shares or money or any incentive structure
is in place there for people to share their extra Internet
connectivity.

So I would change this paragraph to:

"VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users
get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by
the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. But
VNOs can also operate on gift-economy principles, where participants
contribute to the commons by sharing their resources knowing that this
benefits all."

Section 6.2.1,=C2=A0 Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless link= s

"Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who=
design, deploy and manage wireless networks."

Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of
scale and mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is
so popular in alternative networks. You can get a device for $10. And
you can get this because everyone is producing this hardware, and the
hardware is not just made for the alternative networks. In contrast,
traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for them. Even
if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number
of WiFi routers produced for the global market.

Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that
needed? Why properties and descriptions of those standards should be
in this draft? They belong to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In
this draft we can just reference those standards. Like what of all
this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general text
which is true for any use:

"802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for long range rural communications in TV white space frequencies and
first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16
(WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio
ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8
MHz channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the
default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 100 km is possible with special
scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 is specifically customized
for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined for more
distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots
destined for nearby CPEs.

Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS)
and a connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation
spectrum database. Once the base station receives the allowed TV
channels, it communicates a preferred operating white space TV channel
with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a coexistence
mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations aware
of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same
network."

Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols

"A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]."

Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/,
which is far from the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in
practice, ETX metric is used, which is not even mentioned in RFC3626.

Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many
networks, and it is even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you
want to include a routing protocol for alternative networks with IETF
standard, you should include this one for sure.

Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources

It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be
some special prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs.
But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes
will be much further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just
this distance already influences that the users of open network are
prioritized less (they have higher packet loss, lower bitrate, which
is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate).

In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself
on different frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh
networks ran everything (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs
on the same channel, but with 5 GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band
devices this is often separated now.

Section 7.3., services provided

What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the
Internet and networks in general? This looks pretty useless section
which would not inform anyone reading this draft of anything about
alternative networks.

If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized
services developed just for community/alternative networks:

- Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org
- Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/
- Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms
- VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries
- Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices - Community radio/TV stations

What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet
access. For example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless
communities which made networks in villages just to be able to play
games.

Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies

"Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in<= br> many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations."

That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles
which are important in many other alternative networks. So the
question how informative this sentence is, because for some maybe this
is true, for some it is not, and some probably are build just around
this. Others probably address this with innovative solutions like
internal file servers.

At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs
(h= ttps://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To
me is unclear.

Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft:
h= ttps://rhizomatica.org/
http://www.servalproject.org/
h= ttp://villagetelco.org/


Mitar

--
ht= tp://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
--001a11407b2a2d5bc9053031417f-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 01:31:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6C412E901 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:31:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.231 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oq2QmaMC46Wu for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vortiz.unizar.es (vortiz.unizar.es [155.210.11.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0924712E902 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flumen.unizar.es ([155.210.11.58] helo=mail.unizar.es) by vortiz.unizar.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1apXFO-0002GM-FU; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:31:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:30:57 +0200 From: Jose Saldana To: gaia@irtf.org, future@systemli.org Organization: University of Zaragoza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d76a50d6f49977440e927a742aa27e5@unizar.es> X-Sender: jsaldana@unizar.es User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.5 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:31:08 -0000 Hi, I have had a look to the web sites you suggest in your e-mail. The question is that I think they are not about Alternative Networks, but about alternative protocols or applications. I mean, none of them is about deploying new physical infrastructure, but about software. The draft is about deploying new networks, with physical devices, links, antennae, etc. Do you think this is true for all the links you have sent? Thanks in advance, Jose El 2016-04-06 13:33, future@systemli.org escribió: > Dear authors of "Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, > characterization, > technologies and architectures > draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-04" > > I'd find it useful if your draft provided a perspective towards future > Alternative Networks. > I am thinking of software projects that have a strong emphasis on > privacy and security in their network design. > After Snowden it is only a logical next step in order to meet the > requirement of providing "freedom to communicate without interference, > or interception" to explore and develop this kind of networks for > public use. > So these projects are for example > > * GNUnet [1] > * Maidsafe [2] > * Net2o [3] > * Briar [4] > * Sneakernet aDTN with its client Timberdoodle [5] > > Some of these have developed privacy aware routing algorithms and > decentral naming systems for about a decade now. > So in contrast to the existing Alternative Networks they provide > meta-data-protection (implications of having none: [13]) > by design as well as the encryption of contents. > What makes them special is that some of them (the first three) are > alternative internet protocol stacks which don't depend on servers or > central authorites. They are fully distributed and decentralized. So > they not only have the potential to provide a free and open > communication means to its users but also one that backs up their > civil rights by being censorship resistant and by keeping its users' > communication confidental and secure - more than the current internet > does. [6],[7] > > It is only a matter of time that they include the capability to do > mesh networking. > GNUnet has its own module for this: CADET [8][9]. > GNUnet has been packed for OpenWRT half a year ago [10] > It fits on a 8 MB Router and possibly on a 4 MB one, but still needs > improvements to "dance the wifi" [11]. > Maidsafe is rewritten in Rust- a security aware language. This rewrite > should fit well on embedded devices. > When Rust is ported to OpenWRT also Maidsafe can run its first > experiments with open-wireless-networks. > Net2o is built to be lightweight as well. It's developer claims that > there is no reason why it should be not able to do > wifi-mesh-networking. > > You really should mention in your draft, that community networks are > severely threatend by FCC and EU regulations.[12] > Proposal 1: All radio equipped hardware being sold must be open and > enable alternative firmware to be deployed. > > The current open frequencies have a very low throughput or need an > enormous effort and knowledge to use them. > Wifi delivers very bad results when walls, vegetation or water is > involved. > Proposal 2: The most suitable (best throughput under various > conditions) frequencies must be opened for public use worldwide. > Under these conditions more people would be able to participate in > digital communication. > > Streets have physical limitations. Who owns them has got a monopoly. > With telecommunication infrastructure it is quite similar and the > reason why for example in Germany at last the variety of > telecommunication providers has declined with the result of one > telecommunication provider having a monopoly and therefore can > dictate the prices.(Telekom) > Streets as well as communication means are vital for the well being of > a society. > To leave these life veins to bodies with commercial interest without > ethical commitments results in a discrimination (against) > the poor. > In wireless communities the poor depend on the generosity of others to > pay their access where it is actually the responsibilty of a country > to provide free access to communication means indiscriminately to its > inhabitants as it is ususal for streets and has been proven to be a > good idea. > Therefore > Proposal 3: The digital communication infrastructure such as > conductions and antennas should be mostly tax funded, free to use and > in public hand. > > > [1] https://gnunet.org/ > [2] http://maidsafe.net/ > [3] http://net2o.de/ > [4] https://briarproject.org/ > [5] https://github.com/timberdoodle/TimberdoodleApp > > [6] https://www.w3.org/2014/strint/papers/65.pdf > [7] wiki.c3d2.de/EDN > [8] https://gnunet.org/cadet > [9] > http://mirror.eu.oneandone.net/projects/media.ccc.de/congress/2013/workshops/30c3-WS-en-YBTI_Mesh-Bart_Polot-GNUnet_Wireless_Mesh_DHT.webm > [10] https://github.com/dangowrt/gnunet-15.05 > > [11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEBu7u6hZSo > [12] https://fsfe.org/activities/radiodirective/ > [13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g00l5qBYXu8, starting from minute > 4:00 > > > Hope this helped. > Kind regards > Fmod > > Project EDN > wiki.c3d2.de/EDN > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia From nobody Mon Apr 11 01:44:59 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA0A12E965 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:44:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HSrJ4f8rm8YR for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C62B112E963 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3B8inm6017014 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:44:49 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'gaia'" References: <56EC2B12.1000303@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:45:22 +0200 Message-ID: <008801d193ce$7c00d370$74027a50$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQHqAWaelkIUOg7D5u/t2GMctGpsUAEMx8Jmn0szrHA= Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG Poll: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:44:58 -0000 Hi all, We are improving the draft, and we would like to know if there is any = real Alternative Network using: LTE-U 802.11s DTNs PEPs If anyone can tell us about some real deployment using these = technologies, it would be very useful in order to cite them in the = document. Best regards, Jose > -----Mensaje original----- > De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Matthew Ford > Enviado el: lunes, 04 de abril de 2016 15:22 > Para: gaia > Asunto: [gaia] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG Poll: = draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments >=20 > With Stephen=E2=80=99s permission, I=E2=80=99m sharing his comments on = the alternative-network- > deployments draft. >=20 > Mat >=20 > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Stephen Farrell > > Subject: Re: [irsg] IRSG Poll: > > draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments > > Date: 18 March 2016 at 13:21:38 GMT-3 > > To: Matthew Ford , Internet Research Steering Group > > > > > > > > - 5.5: you don't mention DTN, there have been a number DTN based > > testbeds, but probably none that reached any scale (so you might be > > right to leave those out) > > > > - 7.2 doesn't mention PEPs, might be worth including as satellite = was > > mentioned earlier (as they break stuff when > > present;-) > > > > - 7.3 omits email, which is odd and you only mention the web in the > > context of proxies which is maybe even more odd; and NTP is not = really > > an "intranet" service, nor is IRC. Maybe this section could do with > > some more work? > > > > Missing characteristics - I didn't see much or any consideration of > > the stuff below and would have thought that these issues were > > important in characterising alternative networks: > > > > - Reliability: I only see one instance of the string "reliab" > > which is odd - wouldn't the reliability of these networks be a major > > consideration? I mean the overall uptime mostly, and not the packet > > loss rate. > > > > - Latency: I also see only one mention of latency which is also > > surprising - for some of these networks I assume that e.g. not being > > fast enough to use FB, gmail or similar is a barrier. I'd have = thought > > that'd be an interesting characteristic too. > > > > - Power: whether the nodes have reliable power or not would also = seem > > to be an interesting way to characterise 'em. > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia From nobody Mon Apr 11 02:11:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2B512EA33 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:11:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KX2ViwEE4PYG for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2299E12EA31 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c126so147724232lfb.2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:11:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=7N6MB0rypADEpLhiHA2mku0odei5secjqyiFon9vWc4=; b=mUibcDVNwtHN01o/5iASm8wsEf9o6M4ku/nY/10P1qdMxS02mx4ai/9LoJKFl0z80Q 85faepMb2izBazSbWPc/lCqwyttGzDb8Ma3MkkuTOS4iKp54KPtMTbvj7EYrqQUXhFhw xvfjDhNeDJb1huYaNCIG1wabl9sVgAi+zUHb+oV19o38KvYg9XHWK3nIUvUhKjkaVw+r GQU110PvEZ56feTabG0L+avdaSsWhjldGRqLHK/VrGJK1IucyfutStBG2JVgoRPIRiT3 qiJLU9ugzyU0LQW2NE/3Hv/+cw0eeCUX/oqFmVsfhXjbOdM0GFZHwcPfEKOFNjrTZO2l sicQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=7N6MB0rypADEpLhiHA2mku0odei5secjqyiFon9vWc4=; b=TWtz6NBqyd+A9zEJlQBON9RqnqlL1xAkeb4WuQe94qiUXuexV8Gc8nRH/Qh7w4AfEB BRyLhTmJE9M+hyzNRcxvVJRjp0KKG6ipF92doGbBMrMJuhyZ3uwWmgfU1DPzNesQDoqb jjwcEu4M+idbHs2YJ5LJk32VomjrMcaUKNklBJMAWCtvZi134i+5Os5eius4NehREFVH ucNm9u9WIcEGEeK7bt846sVXcdyhz/1YLQJrvyzTsGDUt4E9YqT15TGcmeofjyf8g1fV 07prdek/7rP98NGFhCgqje8lOefial95sCNmDRplucMXxvQueyKcCpF8XGxzfA3cwj+8 9bYw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKXaYUzxX3UPoXxuz/6EAxSwDLBwgB6MhpaoXvb4NPO7TAZXJ4fK2jliyyvJO+ps0H0/hqF4lIG7S776A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.198.132 with SMTP id jc4mr8372601lbc.120.1460365902335; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:11:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <008801d193ce$7c00d370$74027a50$@unizar.es> References: <56EC2B12.1000303@cs.tcd.ie> <008801d193ce$7c00d370$74027a50$@unizar.es> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 05:11:42 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lVvvDnZq-uum3I365CqxCONevBk Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c32940d9d793053031ee6e Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG Poll: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:11:46 -0000 --001a11c32940d9d793053031ee6e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable but arent PEPs normally deployed by the backhaul operator - I dont think we have any community network operators deploying PEPs.. arjuna On 11 April 2016 at 04:45, Jose Saldana wrote: > Hi all, > > We are improving the draft, and we would like to know if there is any rea= l > Alternative Network using: > > LTE-U > > 802.11s > > DTNs > > PEPs > > If anyone can tell us about some real deployment using these technologies= , > it would be very useful in order to cite them in the document. > > Best regards, > > Jose > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Matthew Ford > > Enviado el: lunes, 04 de abril de 2016 15:22 > > Para: gaia > > Asunto: [gaia] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG Poll: > draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments > > > > With Stephen=E2=80=99s permission, I=E2=80=99m sharing his comments on = the > alternative-network- > > deployments draft. > > > > Mat > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > From: Stephen Farrell > > > Subject: Re: [irsg] IRSG Poll: > > > draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments > > > Date: 18 March 2016 at 13:21:38 GMT-3 > > > To: Matthew Ford , Internet Research Steering Group > > > > > > > > > > > > - 5.5: you don't mention DTN, there have been a number DTN based > > > testbeds, but probably none that reached any scale (so you might be > > > right to leave those out) > > > > > > - 7.2 doesn't mention PEPs, might be worth including as satellite was > > > mentioned earlier (as they break stuff when > > > present;-) > > > > > > - 7.3 omits email, which is odd and you only mention the web in the > > > context of proxies which is maybe even more odd; and NTP is not reall= y > > > an "intranet" service, nor is IRC. Maybe this section could do with > > > some more work? > > > > > > Missing characteristics - I didn't see much or any consideration of > > > the stuff below and would have thought that these issues were > > > important in characterising alternative networks: > > > > > > - Reliability: I only see one instance of the string "reliab" > > > which is odd - wouldn't the reliability of these networks be a major > > > consideration? I mean the overall uptime mostly, and not the packet > > > loss rate. > > > > > > - Latency: I also see only one mention of latency which is also > > > surprising - for some of these networks I assume that e.g. not being > > > fast enough to use FB, gmail or similar is a barrier. I'd have though= t > > > that'd be an interesting characteristic too. > > > > > > - Power: whether the nodes have reliable power or not would also seem > > > to be an interesting way to characterise 'em. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gaia mailing list > > gaia@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > --=20 Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a11c32940d9d793053031ee6e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
but arent PEPs normally deployed by the backhaul operator = -

I dont think we have any community network operators d= eploying PEPs..

arjuna

On 11 April 2016 at 04:45, Jose S= aldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:
Hi all,

We are improving the draft, and we would like to know if there is any real = Alternative Network using:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0LTE-U

=C2=A0 =C2=A0802.11s

=C2=A0 =C2=A0DTNs

=C2=A0 =C2=A0PEPs

If anyone can tell us about some real deployment using these technologies, = it would be very useful in order to cite them in the document.

Best regards,

Jose


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces= @irtf.org] En nombre de Matthew Ford
> Enviado el: lunes, 04 de abril de 2016 15:22
> Para: gaia <gaia@irtf.org><= br> > Asunto: [gaia] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG Poll: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-netw= ork-deployments
>
> With Stephen=E2=80=99s permission, I=E2=80=99m sharing his comments on= the alternative-network-
> deployments draft.
>
> Mat
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> > Subject: Re: [irsg] IRSG Poll:
> > draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
> > Date: 18 March 2016 at 13:21:38 GMT-3
> > To: Matthew Ford <ford@isoc.o= rg>, Internet Research Steering Group
> > <irsg@irtf.org>
> >
> >
> > - 5.5: you don't mention DTN, there have been a number DTN ba= sed
> > testbeds, but probably none that reached any scale (so you might = be
> > right to leave those out)
> >
> > - 7.2 doesn't mention PEPs, might be worth including as satel= lite was
> > mentioned earlier (as they break stuff when
> > present;-)
> >
> > - 7.3 omits email, which is odd and you only mention the web in t= he
> > context of proxies which is maybe even more odd; and NTP is not r= eally
> > an "intranet" service, nor is IRC. Maybe this section c= ould do with
> > some more work?
> >
> > Missing characteristics - I didn't see much or any considerat= ion of
> > the stuff below and would have thought that these issues were
> > important in characterising alternative networks:
> >
> > - Reliability: I only see one instance of the string "reliab= "
> > which is odd - wouldn't the reliability of these networks be = a major
> > consideration? I mean the overall uptime mostly, and not the pack= et
> > loss rate.
> >
> > - Latency: I also see only one mention of latency which is also > > surprising - for some of these networks I assume that e.g. not be= ing
> > fast enough to use FB, gmail or similar is a barrier. I'd hav= e thought
> > that'd be an interesting characteristic too.
> >
> > - Power: whether the nodes have reliable power or not would also = seem
> > to be an interesting way to characterise 'em.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia


_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



--
=
--001a11c32940d9d793053031ee6e-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 02:58:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6712712EAB5 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RvC86Ov7l_RP for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FEC112EAB3 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id o126so179661859iod.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:58:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=SMvJaZt0hXhyEOhleFrUhotxHSje2IsNdiEI79OANYU=; b=ELnQbjSaPOSsiLBXWlU24xkmghik3fZVLrrh/bDYSqUh3PkZin3qhld6aVeclILtBP oV/8KYVyusAIO9HSbYik8gjUxeu9XykQeQJMcW0JWjinaEV+liLE2JiH8Z4upv1/6pEu jEZmbsPLmDjtCD2JNkV0/206octDz3L9eXCz6o0GySN1BhmqDkoX9W+Hzj9Ei1w4TbIr ZBwcbcHnrJsz3m3jl+7O4mZBLovgJ8sfJIC6ULCNA2U3lOzLqpPGjuys0XtRbF48sD03 FcmQQ+1icDwSukjB01Sdp+YRnXk6p9OVdb5M6hdJMP7qMZMq6pH8aOpVOP0E4A+1Ayj/ Uhog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=SMvJaZt0hXhyEOhleFrUhotxHSje2IsNdiEI79OANYU=; b=PzLibIiwS81YdQ1AuKJq75W5VSlQ+taWyQuNu5nMCUs4AiM/Hqa0jsGIaAiA8pxPEZ PFnhYrXIPGj6Ki+qUIUAxwwcrdMMX2OoDbdvq2qnNX3WjX/xtT0drBhjBlsmoYY00YTU ucQ2VjnzwadTh4jpX8aP1vLMr+b4JrleFKRVgZ4rCPPcWeHjViNIeDoMVCMQ9X3ZGyqD sYDhSzt/48ujSmsn//73dyBHBJKpqlc39epJLrBnlzXKjhSM4zZPas0y79IQclDE49ZH hScqlOQIf68/SiizWqH2FeAVupqCY3hl+lQPnZMyU1nas9PYC1c6//7vhLSgWT2Uz+lE oD6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLW22szJbnQN6ma2tx6dESSEKYoBu3tqktm10b/C1eFD6xr+3aKliJcf26+e7kWynYj2tqQLv73BI/EcA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.134.8 with SMTP id i8mr21454040iod.130.1460368704838; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:58:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:58:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:58:27 -0000 Hi! On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > this eg is already in the draft. > > I think most of the reasoning you have given should already be in the > draft.. Not sure to which part of my e-mail does this relate to? Which reasoning exactly? The things I wrote are things I feel are not in the draft, or are not correctly represented in the draft. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Mon Apr 11 07:43:02 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F33E12EFDD for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:43:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9UB-fBFH7diG for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E984712EFDA for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3BEgorZ017328; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:42:51 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:43:25 +0200 Message-ID: <00e401d19400$81719330$8454b990$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJbjXepqm7dHrGRfCei+ZDxWO9lQ55w5HPg Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:43:01 -0000 Hi, Mitar, Thank you for the pointer. I think we can add some references to these articles in different sections: "A technological overview of the guifi.net community network" can fit in 5.1 "Sharing low-cost wireless infrastructures with telecommunications operators to bring 3G services to rural communities" can fit in 5.3. "Evaluation of mesh routing protocols for wireless community networks" can fit in 7.1.2.2 Thanks a lot, Jose > -----Mensaje original----- > De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Mitar > Enviado el: domingo, 10 de abril de 2016 6:34 > Para: gaia@irtf.org > Asunto: [gaia] Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks journal > > Hi! > > While reading latest RFC draft I noticed it does not cite any of the papers from the > Community Networks special issue of Computer Networks > journal: > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13891286/93/part/P2 > > I suspect that maybe it was missed because it is fairly recent? But I think articles > very much address many questions the RFC draft is trying to address as well: what > are recent organizational and technical advancements in community networks and > their deployments. > > I would urge editors to read through papers and see how to integrate information > from those papers into the RFC. I will continue reading the RFC myself and try to > find cases where papers would help as well. > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia From nobody Mon Apr 11 07:46:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C83B12D64C for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:46:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TPOdTeXy19Lm for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5043B12D646 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3BEk99A022611; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:46:09 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:46:44 +0200 Message-ID: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQKWjG7UzSjw6ikG1xI9fHNnp9jdip365I+g Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:46:21 -0000 Hi Mitar, First of all, thanks a lot for your detailed comments. The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the first version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion, the draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG review. So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying it. We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those that we can reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will never have a document about this. The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we will have to go back again, and this is something we should avoid. Thanks a lot for your feedback, Jose > -----Mensaje original----- > De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Mitar > Enviado el: lunes, 11 de abril de 2016 1:54 > Para: gaia > Asunto: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments > > Hi! > > I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan slovenija > (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some feedback on the draft. I am > glad people are working on it. My list of comments is in no particular order, mostly in > order of reading. I am sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the > draft. > > Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From our network and > from my experience talking to other community networks, I would claim that many > share also much more altruistic motivations. For example, our whole network is > build around principle that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at > home (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us will > share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course there are other > motivations why people participate, and everyone has a different mix of those > motivations, but I definitely think that the list should be extended to include: > > - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism > - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, > decentralization to minimize control, showing that alternative is possible) > - building a new type of commons > - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a say in > operations > - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the community (eg. > http://tidepools.co/) > - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other extreme situations > - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, empowering > others to take their Internet connectivity into their own hands > > An example of another network describing itself with much more of what I am > writing than what is currently on the list: > https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh > > All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I remembered without > much thinking) for many community networks. I do not think the list in section 4.2 > can ever be comprehensive, but I was really taken aback from its economy-centric > bias at the moment. Most community networks do not operate on that level. It is of > course present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are doing > it. > > Section 4.4, technologies employed: > > "Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some villages." > > Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages mentioned? > Optical systems can also be used elsewhere. > > Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no > fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially in high-density > urban environments because of no interference. > > Section 4.5, typical scenarios: > > I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any network I know of > outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Community networks > maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow and spread > over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries. > > Section 5, classification of alternative networks: > > Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited perspective. I would > claim that most alternative networks go beyond just incentives, but exist because of > various beliefs: about how networks should operate, who should have control over > them, the importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc. > > Section 5.1, community networks: > > As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list and I think you > should include at least ones I listed above. But probably you should do a survey and > ask community networks what are their goals and motivations, instead of trying to > guess them. (If you have done such a survey, I would love to see data.) > > Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default. > > Typical scenarios: all > > Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be small, city > only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are focused on one region, some > are distributed around larger region, connected with VPN together. > > "There is a shared platform (e.g. a web site) where a minimum coordination is > performed. This way, community members with the right permissions have an > obvious and direct form of organizational control over the overall operation of the > network (e.g. IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own > participation in the network)." > > This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community networks with > much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with > IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible. > > Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how control over the > routing of the network has anything with the existence of the shared platform? In > wlan slovenija network we also use a web shared platform, but that platform does > not control the network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even > without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about use of IP space, > and learning how to configure their nodes. > > So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core network's > resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries, > etc.) are managed. > > "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the system may add > link segments to the network in such a way that the new segments can support > multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of the joined > network, including the capacity to further extend the network. Once these link > segments are joined to the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction > between the previous and the new extent of the network." > > Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with "autonomous > system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) > > So what exactly is the property which differentiates community networks? Maybe > there is none. Maybe community networks are simply trying to (re)build the Internet, > but this time having infrastructure owned by participants, which are not just > consumers, but are participating. > > I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and that people own > the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This should be more clearly > explained. So it is not so much about technology in community networks, but about > who owns and controls equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates > the network growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers, > participants, people gets blurred. > > "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has > contributed. > > Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for backbone > nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track ownership of equipment, > because they do not care about ownership if it is operating according to common > principles. And if it is not, it should not be in the network no matter who owns the > equipment. > > Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party stakeholders > > "VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an incentive > structure for all the actors: the end users get money for sharing their network, the > network operators are paid by the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio- > environmental role." > > I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section really do that. > In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/ movement is listed, but no shares or > money or any incentive structure is in place there for people to share their extra > Internet connectivity. > > So I would change this paragraph to: > > "VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, thus > creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for > sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who in turn > accomplish their socio-environmental role. But VNOs can also operate on gift- > economy principles, where participants contribute to the commons by sharing their > resources knowing that this benefits all." > > Section 6.2.1, Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless links > > "Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who design, deploy > and manage wireless networks." > > Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of scale and > mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is so popular in alternative > networks. You can get a device for $10. And you can get this because everyone is > producing this hardware, and the hardware is not just made for the alternative > networks. In contrast, traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for > them. Even if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number of > WiFi routers produced for the global market. > > Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that needed? Why > properties and descriptions of those standards should be in this draft? They belong > to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In this draft we can just reference those > standards. Like what of all this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general > text which is true for any use: > > "802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for long range rural > communications in TV white space frequencies and first approved in July 2011. The > standard is similar to the 802.16 > (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio ability. The > maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8 MHz channel using 64- > QAM modulation. The achievable range using the default MAC scheme is 30 km, > however 100 km is possible with special scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 > is specifically customized for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined > for more distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots > destined for nearby CPEs. > > Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS) and a > connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation spectrum database. Once > the base station receives the allowed TV channels, it communicates a preferred > operating white space TV channel with the CPE devices. The standard also includes > a coexistence mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations > aware of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same network." > > Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols > > "A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State Routing > Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]." > > Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/, which is far from > the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in practice, ETX metric is used, > which is not even mentioned in RFC3626. > > Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many networks, and it is > even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you want to include a routing > protocol for alternative networks with IETF standard, you should include this one for > sure. > > Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources > > It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be some special > prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs. > But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes will be much > further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just this distance already > influences that the users of open network are prioritized less (they have higher > packet loss, lower bitrate, which is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate). > > In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself on different > frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh networks ran everything > (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs on the same channel, but with 5 > GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band devices this is often separated now. > > Section 7.3., services provided > > What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the Internet and > networks in general? This looks pretty useless section which would not inform > anyone reading this draft of anything about alternative networks. > > If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized services > developed just for community/alternative networks: > > - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN > - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org > - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ > - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms > - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries > - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices > - Community radio/TV stations > > What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet access. For > example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless communities which made > networks in villages just to be able to play games. > > Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies > > "Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in many Alternative > Networks due to bandwidth limitations." > > That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles which are > important in many other alternative networks. So the question how informative this > sentence is, because for some maybe this is true, for some it is not, and some > probably are build just around this. Others probably address this with innovative > solutions like internal file servers. > > At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs > (https://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To me is unclear. > > Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft: > > https://rhizomatica.org/ > http://www.servalproject.org/ > http://villagetelco.org/ > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia From nobody Mon Apr 11 13:47:03 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25F912F12A for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:47:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b9MUqz_d6rqU for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31F2712E436 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x233.google.com with SMTP id f1so71653806igr.1 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:47:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=WvTqgtpLbvKhsfHAlOb52RXHwxfNbbhaN6EZjL2giaY=; b=hdEKtXchMGGpdFpJabUaYXxegNLcjhoSBRVCGd0ssTvxOIof7o5PK8w6y0lbdSplU0 uEdwkmQd1g9K/zj8XvuNwyV7lf0iTRWJBPi6dCeqjNbT9RMHx+WW8QnhTi2gnd5f/+1f I68/MAlTGHyttyK/wQZ0Rl2kFLLIo2odjEzUSppFpZLvIPqnYFQgthPTHQq2+4R1UCVH 9HHu7MhAUN30YXqlk9WCVqaD8usXcZv3XARF603V+mZFY4MU22pO71DivxXXJTVR3lDN 3UHWsYqUOruDVc5c13vitxLP24+oZ0R+FJqamK/gjNgtuLWlw6EYP1JA984ybCu8aSZf 1Taw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=WvTqgtpLbvKhsfHAlOb52RXHwxfNbbhaN6EZjL2giaY=; b=D/+82Dl1YlpyBKwSQPAw2oS33RTV80XFtP0dR36GUN6yhJuvzSGvZmX5QN0lqVtfVn mpflr37x5nRJR80++qBxaZbA1MF75utJDs/SG4G/17LLfAYZEAtGVeEHEsF/tZqiikWx HU8jnVOM6yqAgdSHDjjyCrvcEki2OyFMd2WUs0abr/fjsaX30Vij/sIoxO/ihsS+SpDs nOsL1ZJS+PShSnI3vvyZB6ZPu7Ag48rP38XqpkqwWIeaU0mYHGn2WMWheM4ZjZJC1E1z y6vmGqCnzqUILaa6wnWsgJw2sph44deBG5ETt5VA/z0nj7RUNgluMO5L9CdZaTs+P/6X edFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUdRVunluCI6zDOd3YfI1fsFAJ6mewAcH+1RX3kOiXvoghs8MpJyn9nKgKqGol/chcDlsQARx/rRa9RcQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.92.41 with SMTP id cj9mr104744igb.38.1460407619398; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:46:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:46:59 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:47:02 -0000 Hi! On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the first > version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion, the > draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG review. > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying it. It is amazing that in whole this work until now this was the first time that information about this process has come to the community networks at all. And I am probably on all mailing lists there are about community networks. So I would really be questioning how it is possible to create such a document without involvement of the whole segment you are trying to describe? From my reading it seems you have consulted only with guifi.net community network, UPC, and not much others? And even that was without any broader survey or something? I got some private comments explaining agreement with my comments and surprises how community networks are depicted in your draft. So now you have a decision to make. Are you going further with something you know lacks clearly needed improvements, or you go on just because you are stuck in the process. What would really be the benefit to the broader Internet community if it contains such (I would claim) invalid information? Please point me to messages to wireless community mailing lists where gaia task force send any announcement about this work, ask community networks for input, reported to them on progress and process? Explained deadlines and so on? > We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those that we can > reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will never have a > document about this. This would be loss for the whole Internet community. No document is better than invalid document, no? > The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we > will have to go back again, and this is something we should avoid. Why? Isn't the rational thing to try to get to something useful? What is the purpose of this document? To have something published? Or to have something published which can guide and inform the Internet community in a meaningful way? Currently, the document pretty badly represents wireless community networks to the extent that I would even consider it harmful to represent them in this way. Or at least rename "community networks" in your document to something else, like "community operated Internet providers" and let "community networks" be defined in some other document. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Mon Apr 11 13:52:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7223112D764 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:52:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hBpq_OuYSDO6 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE05612EF08 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c126so174856789lfb.2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:52:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=ZbMWLayC7BKNl0/fqjwRE+3c0OOAKHEKeLDIFWFstQQ=; b=MeLreCJg7UCHs+AJ8l4r559uv4+YqIE/Oeo9mZiAGsZw177DwsmMlHCu8UkgPOGaTo smZxdHsO4XyC9XlmXoyujwWXqCz0B/+Ulxeo/Lt84aUJPMT5Q/hsMJT6Xcu1CiQsPhKP ZDh3lCyqZf5YuFIrz7qgj5JOLCZ3sI4lSjmk5oVouZQAk+dXmNJV2H7oo8dWu09i0ZY8 4ZQk2iFe8R+BfM0Rcr6V++X+pvumhQJcTD9b7jabz2o6RlSsBcrJgS1CDqjvPDKO0s1Z oYfpQGmsNe8+Ho7FAiQTcu/m+BeyUa+ywswSvrWZRmAHIp4zsSQEM79diUFS383/GQtR F3tg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ZbMWLayC7BKNl0/fqjwRE+3c0OOAKHEKeLDIFWFstQQ=; b=VTJTvediTDKo6+/pxxi16Eh+n1kywVIHjlwJenTCD6GoqNgo40n+IXGtpS0KBjY9Ns dgZcSapDIJxGnmJf9WBxJ2WE8oNeRpURMLZC9AOxa1HjD1rQFrHmC+q4JLnrVgnHpwwy 1vPBONA6h4rF/tieBC69MKMajkkrqtXMiXmzfiFVKfnaqF/9RNW0tCa467/3QqtQLc60 G+RnXD6JO0qffu2pc6UlNGjL1NDym017fif5E84W2zxJvCoAmKfxUiu2haBwebr/wfgB L/QWrOWxUNOK5TckzPCVzTXj3u9x4Ryo6p7bwj4D50WOg1ujjNx34vGi4juRJGNLLjbL ln5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKIE5Hk9iNvRAC0A70r/I9GijG6laLO0XhwEx13MKfMdib/pNbnlitkL/eTU3tG4a18zPuCtWy827+mOA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.89.136 with SMTP id n130mr7863777lfb.52.1460407928154; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:52:08 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7t95SsXdbn-DewSBYJfc5jWHL20 Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11412b14c8f15805303bb7a3 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:52:12 -0000 --001a11412b14c8f15805303bb7a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I am sorry - but the document has been floating around for 2 years now - and just passed IRSG review process.. you just joined on the 6th April! and stating that we consulted only Guifi is not appropriate considering that we have been working with the GAIA group sending mails after mails asking for feedback and using the feedback to revise the draft.. we have people from other CNs who have contributed to this draft and gave feedback.. if you want to write a new document, please do with your thoughts. - thank arjuna On 11 April 2016 at 16:46, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > > The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the > first > > version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion, > the > > draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG > review. > > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying > it. > > It is amazing that in whole this work until now this was the first > time that information about this process has come to the community > networks at all. And I am probably on all mailing lists there are > about community networks. > > So I would really be questioning how it is possible to create such a > document without involvement of the whole segment you are trying to > describe? From my reading it seems you have consulted only with > guifi.net community network, UPC, and not much others? And even that > was without any broader survey or something? > > I got some private comments explaining agreement with my comments and > surprises how community networks are depicted in your draft. > > So now you have a decision to make. Are you going further with > something you know lacks clearly needed improvements, or you go on > just because you are stuck in the process. What would really be the > benefit to the broader Internet community if it contains such (I would > claim) invalid information? > > Please point me to messages to wireless community mailing lists where > gaia task force send any announcement about this work, ask community > networks for input, reported to them on progress and process? > Explained deadlines and so on? > > > We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those that we can > > reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will never have a > > document about this. > > This would be loss for the whole Internet community. No document is > better than invalid document, no? > > > The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we > > will have to go back again, and this is something we should avoid. > > Why? Isn't the rational thing to try to get to something useful? What > is the purpose of this document? To have something published? Or to > have something published which can guide and inform the Internet > community in a meaningful way? Currently, the document pretty badly > represents wireless community networks to the extent that I would even > consider it harmful to represent them in this way. Or at least rename > "community networks" in your document to something else, like > "community operated Internet providers" and let "community networks" > be defined in some other document. > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a11412b14c8f15805303bb7a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am sorry - but the document has been floating around for= 2 years now - and just passed IRSG review process..

you= just joined on the 6th April!

and stating that we= consulted only Guifi is not appropriate considering that we have been work= ing with the GAIA group sending mails after mails asking for feedback and u= sing the feedback to revise the draft..

we have pe= ople from other CNs who have contributed to this draft and gave feedback..<= /div>

if you want to write a new document, please do wit= h your thoughts. - thank
arjuna

On 11 April 2016 at 16:46, Mitar <mmita= r@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:
> The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the = first
> version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion,= the
> draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG rev= iew.
> So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifyi= ng it.

It is amazing that in whole this work until now this was the first time that information about this process has come to the community
networks at all. And I am probably on all mailing lists there are
about community networks.

So I would really be questioning how it is possible to create such a
document without involvement of the whole segment you are trying to
describe? From my reading it seems you have consulted only with
guifi.net= community network, UPC, and not much others? And even that
was without any broader survey or something?

I got some private comments explaining agreement with my comments and
surprises how community networks are depicted in your draft.

So now you have a decision to make. Are you going further with
something you know lacks clearly needed improvements, or you go on
just because you are stuck in the process. What would really be the
benefit to the broader Internet community if it contains such (I would
claim) invalid information?

Please point me to messages to wireless community mailing lists where
gaia task force send any announcement about this work, ask community
networks for input, reported to them on progress and process?
Explained deadlines and so on?

> We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those that we can=
> reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will never have= a
> document about this.

This would be loss for the whole Internet community. No document is<= br> better than invalid document, no?

> The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we
> will have to go back again, and this is something we should avoid.

Why? Isn't the rational thing to try to get to something useful?= What
is the purpose of this document? To have something published? Or to
have something published which can guide and inform the Internet
community in a meaningful way? Currently, the document pretty badly
represents wireless community networks to the extent that I would even
consider it harmful to represent them in this way. Or at least rename
"community networks" in your document to something else, like
"community operated Internet providers" and let "community n= etworks"
be defined in some other document.


Mitar

--
ht= tp://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



--
=
--001a11412b14c8f15805303bb7a3-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 16:03:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DA112F590 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:03:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x5xFjY3_EVqC for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27D0C12F1A7 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x232.google.com with SMTP id kb1so94275879igb.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Qn+erfl9xxo6oEoewBWJXS/IU5PkfgH9697G1JzI4PM=; b=lo6SVQ4Jx2Ly9xcTWzjb/RPso2ZA2sgfZ5NOd4jQQXe5PfgHaNODiaEExh1Ululm/s zftcMUCHe8JU1So9L33kZIp0GwTjUURV7+nXWbtL7eckWp8q97y7t3CgZ7cahJgqD6KQ Bhq4c1MKXCKPTKOPZsgBdFBp0ly5xUicfi5AgpOfiriyyafsjzXjmragvJ1P3ua0Zg5y 1DkL5WPNOdALySrWtKcR/3XGOBG+zycK10Riu750f+LqQtpfTdNzrTegqx17uUZRHWhu aS5fTlyNWeHwxBPpr0HHm4M7xnxqHPtMUSX+QVPrLugQBjAK23/unple9WNmKbsxEx+N 16Hg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Qn+erfl9xxo6oEoewBWJXS/IU5PkfgH9697G1JzI4PM=; b=R0idm/lve9Y0hMvtWbqkfQr8hYNpH8j9mIMfUQt0GMvjP3LsBe8wXqRk5uE3x+JL1q 7elauh9NNckOkHa4qEJ32YY904D6NjYIsEPv6/ePyOP6ZvJmSML5gbkYpE9wGxfpyyM0 8QY0lQvm+IS930D+zlGoGxz9FVjGGLRJJgeJxV8Ku6mGMXMBkqRwfIki6An76QZSOxr0 14Uew0xls9sU68BAGSMaEtEtcwCFJindRwYk/vu9Y4ZsjO79KsEI24LFCZSr4SxC1HLR ilHCgjCAYkhid2ostk5QIMcimliKJDX4yNE+kH4PEY3MEKOesg9omPz/5e1yGxQRwVOd KXGA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUzgns0uCE8+T9plqkgffBD+5S7Uz3/DFb5ULE9l0M+Uxnt9+1RfgtuCnNu5CLos0GeSsysfnF3TzBhRg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.160.39 with SMTP id xh7mr581392igb.64.1460415781433; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:03:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:03:01 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:03:04 -0000 Hi! On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > and stating that we consulted only Guifi is not appropriate considering that > we have been working with the GAIA group sending mails after mails asking > for feedback and using the feedback to revise the draft.. Please, show me an e-mail where you asked for such feedback on any mailing list with community networks? > we have people from other CNs who have contributed to this draft and gave > feedback.. Great. :-) But yes, continue locked inside the processes knowing that you are misrepresenting community networks. Mitar > if you want to write a new document, please do with your thoughts. - thank > arjuna > > On 11 April 2016 at 16:46, Mitar wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: >> > The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the >> > first >> > version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion, >> > the >> > draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG >> > review. >> > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying >> > it. >> >> It is amazing that in whole this work until now this was the first >> time that information about this process has come to the community >> networks at all. And I am probably on all mailing lists there are >> about community networks. >> >> So I would really be questioning how it is possible to create such a >> document without involvement of the whole segment you are trying to >> describe? From my reading it seems you have consulted only with >> guifi.net community network, UPC, and not much others? And even that >> was without any broader survey or something? >> >> I got some private comments explaining agreement with my comments and >> surprises how community networks are depicted in your draft. >> >> So now you have a decision to make. Are you going further with >> something you know lacks clearly needed improvements, or you go on >> just because you are stuck in the process. What would really be the >> benefit to the broader Internet community if it contains such (I would >> claim) invalid information? >> >> Please point me to messages to wireless community mailing lists where >> gaia task force send any announcement about this work, ask community >> networks for input, reported to them on progress and process? >> Explained deadlines and so on? >> >> > We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those that we can >> > reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will never have a >> > document about this. >> >> This would be loss for the whole Internet community. No document is >> better than invalid document, no? >> >> > The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we >> > will have to go back again, and this is something we should avoid. >> >> Why? Isn't the rational thing to try to get to something useful? What >> is the purpose of this document? To have something published? Or to >> have something published which can guide and inform the Internet >> community in a meaningful way? Currently, the document pretty badly >> represents wireless community networks to the extent that I would even >> consider it harmful to represent them in this way. Or at least rename >> "community networks" in your document to something else, like >> "community operated Internet providers" and let "community networks" >> be defined in some other document. >> >> >> Mitar >> >> -- >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gaia mailing list >> gaia@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > > > -- > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Mon Apr 11 17:15:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065B812D6F2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:15:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z7zDvsHe4tQ8 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from correo2.altermundi.net (correo2.altermundi.net [109.69.10.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECCE12D66F for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.5.3.69] (unknown [138.255.88.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by correo2.altermundi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633F88040E89 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:14:45 -0300 (ART) To: gaia@irtf.org References: <003101d17914$247b6b30$6d724190$@unizar.es> From: =?UTF-8?B?Tmljb2zDoXMgRWNow6FuaXo=?= Message-ID: <570C3DE9.2060806@altermundi.net> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:14:33 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <003101d17914$247b6b30$6d724190$@unizar.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:15:14 -0000 I sent this e-mail to internet-drafts@ietf.org, I'm re-sending it here to contribute to the current debate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi everyone, We've been very busy in Argentina regarding the negative impact the change in government has had on many state policies that had to do with digital inclusion and I'm just now being able to look at stuff that piled up during the past months. Commenting on this draft was one of those things I wanted to do so here it goes. I'm referring to this version: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-04 Hope it's the most current one. First of all I want to point out that when I refer to "our model" or "our experience" I'm referring to these networks: http://libremap.net/#bbox/-41.869560826994544,-82.529296875,-21.779905342529634,-40.5615234375 ... which are based on AlterMundi's community network model, based mainly on Libre-Mesh firmware which we co-develop: http://libre-mesh.org/ and a basic hardware/antenna reference that we recommend after some years of experience deploying community networks in small towns and rural areas in Latin America (mostly Argentina): http://youtu.be/luI5eEMa6BQ https://www.newamerica.org/oti/do-it-yourself-antennas-for-community-networks/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3LyuF2qSSY I just mention this info for context because I've found no reference to Latin American experiences in the document and maybe our approach to this matter has some peculiarities worth mentioning. Please know I'm not trying to be disrespectful with the work being done, I consider it to be important. I just want to give you our point of view and my personal impressions as a Community Networks activist from Latin America that started in the "old days" (2003) and saw quite a bit of the evolution our projects experimented during all these years. So... regarding the document itself these are my observations so far: # Regarding point 3 "For the purpose of this document, a distinction between "global north" and "global south" zones is made, highlighting the factors related to ICT ..." Coming from the "global south" the approach reads like an over-simplification. In many Latin American countries (which by the proposede definition are part of that south) the legal debate is more advanced than in the north. Take Network Neutrality for example, which is law at least in Chile and Argentina while many northern countries are still debating it. Other examploes: Community Networks are considered as a special case in Argentina Digital law; Uruguay has an extensive long-running OLPC program, Argentina has one also (with more than 5.000.000 computers delivered to every child studying in public schools)... There are many more examples of policy in Latin America that are very poorly described by this over-simplification. There are also counter-examples regarding the Global North, where legislation is actually hindering the realization of a Free Internet. Take the FCC ruling which is now making router providers close their routers as one example[-1]. Or the Gag Law in Spain [0] which would be unacceptable in many "global south" countries. The terms "global south/north" are actually not used in most of the document so the whole definition seems overkill or out of place. Do a search for "global south" outside the definitions to check this. If I were to decide, I'd replace Global South for the more standard "Developing countries" (which is also ugly but does not need a long definition) in the two or three places where the other term is used and just avoid the definition altogether. On the other hand, citing some existing legal/regulatory best and worst practices around the world could actually be an interesting addition to the document. # Regarding section 7.1.1 on IP addressing "Most known Alternative Networks started in or around the year 2000. IPv6 was fully specified by then, but almost all Alternative Networks still use IPv4. A survey [Avonts] indicated that IPv6 rollout presents a challenge to Community Networks." It would be interesting to detail here the experiences that have evolved during the past years in different community networks which are already deploying IPv6.[1] In our case, we were the first group of networks in the region to provide public IPv6 to end users[2], which we put in effect on the IPv6 World Launch day in 2012. The Avonts survey cited is from 2013 and most IPv6 adoption around the world (which is still slow) has come later than that: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html # Section 7.1.2.2 When refering to bmx6, the wording: " this is an advanced version of the BATMAN protocol" is confusing as the other popular BATMAN derivative is called batman-advanced. Maybe this section could have more extensive information as it actually represents the core of much development in the Community Network movement. # Section Section 7.3 Fails to describe the accomplishments of current "state of the art" community networks in terms of their relation with the rest of the Internet. The Intranet and Internet division proposed is contrary to what many people in the Community Networks movement work for. >From our perspective (which I know is shared by others[3]), a Community Network must aspire to become a part of the Internet. Many existing community networks are Autonomous Systems and as such they should not be considered "Intranets". >From this perspective, people participating in community networks should be able to offer locally hosted services not just to other network members but to the global Internet. We work to free the Internet, one chunk at a time, not to build parallel networks. In order to accomplish this, networks should at least: * obtain their own IP ranges * deploy public IPv6 addressees to the end user devices * interconnect the network with other Autonomous Systems in the region (preferably through Internet Exchanges) * try to provide symmetric bandwidth to everyone All of these steps have been taken by different projects to different extents. In the networks that deploy Libre-Mesh in Latin America, devices connected to the networks get public IPv6 and there's a DNS system in place that makes every host globally accessible through it's fully qualified name. In the region of Córdoba where the network is bigger (more than 100 nodes in 6 rural towns), we have a peering agreement with the local state university[4] (which also hosts the IXP), and the bandwidth to end users is symmetric and not artificially reduced. IPv6 is provided through a community operated Tunnel Broker[5] where no native IPv6 routing can be achieved and through native deployment and peer agreements where possible. There are many interesting cases that are not represented by this section of the document. I believe further research or direct participation from the people involved is needed to get this to a state where it better describes the current standards in Community Networks. The section actually looks like a description of the state of community networks 10 years ago... Let me know if I can be of further assistance contacting other people or providing a better description of the cases we know of. Cheers! Nico [-1] http://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers/ [0] http://pillku.com/article/ipv6-en-redes-libres-la-experiencia-de-ninux/ [1] https://revolution-news.com/spanish-congress-approves-draconian-laws-essentially-sending-spain-back-to-the-dark-ages/ [2] https://blog.altermundi.net/article/ips-publicas-para-todo-el-mundo/ [3] http://pillku.com/article/las-redes-libres-y-la-ipv6-como-medio-para-llegar-/ http://pillku.com/article/redes-libres-redes-de-pares/ [4] http://lg.beta.as6453.net/prefix_bgpmap/mtt/ipv4?q=138.255.88.1 https://blog.altermundi.net/article/altermundi-ya-es-un-sistema-autonomo/ [5] http://docs.altermundi.net/LibreNet6/ From nobody Mon Apr 11 17:31:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF8B12D7BD for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:31:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.297 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aQzyLFAIQuse for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C4C112D7A8 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CEB6BE2D; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:31:30 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OarFiAlmVr7m; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:31:29 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.49.100] (unknown [86.46.23.241]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EFDBBE25; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:31:28 +0100 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1460421088; bh=h+lzFHzfBnoJEnjubSg6ZLYjt7FFYNi5ToCTbg/nLgo=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MSXN2LoX1bebR3xjEPBxCnCQvWcIuJr31RCB95xAHgO2iz8PLLcgj2IX34q9tVu2k edkemyWs0+UQgX/HPqNgMAgHaaPk3yv0DmLU1rkRtnd7nhhhy/QDv8QTvABImAtM6H eFV4Xup90j1nWSTs5UJbl7LWR0DBBMnNC3eRMaQo= To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan , Mitar References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <570C41E0.5050701@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:31:28 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms060206050101060508050105" Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:31:33 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms060206050101060508050105 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/04/16 21:52, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > I am sorry - but the document has been floating around for 2 years now = - > and just passed IRSG review process.. Well yes the latter half of that sentence is correct, but IRSG review is not an examination and "floating around" (while accurate) is also perhaps not the best method for arriving at the best content. While I do think this draft could be published as an RFC now with no harm accruing, my personal prediction is that all involved will end up happier in the longer term if we do try to discuss recent comments, which are not insubstantial (but which are also not showstoppers). I reckon that's true even if it's also for sure annoying for those who've been working on this text a while. Cheers, S. --------------ms060206050101060508050105 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADCABgkqhkiG9w0BBwEAAKCC CvIwggUIMIID8KADAgECAhBPzaE7pzYviUJyhmHTFBdnMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAMHUxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSkwJwYDVQQLEyBTdGFydENvbSBD ZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTEjMCEGA1UEAxMaU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBDbGll bnQgQ0EwHhcNMTYwMjA5MDkyODE1WhcNMTcwMjA5MDkyODE1WjBOMSIwIAYDVQQDDBlzdGVw aGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllMSgwJgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhlzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxA Y3MudGNkLmllMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAtuC0rYze/2JinSra C9F2RjGdQZjNALLcW9C3WKTwYII3wBslobmHuPEYE5JaGItmzuKnAW619R1rD/kfoNWC19N3 rBZ6UX9Cmb9D9exCwYIwVuSwjrCQWGxgCtNQTrwKzCCpI790GRiMTvxvO7UmzmBrCaBLiZW5 R0fBjK5Yn6hUhAzGBkNbkIEL28cLJqH0yVz7Kl92OlzrQqTPEts5m6cDnNdY/ADfeAX18c1r dxZqcAxhLotrCqgsVA4ilbQDMMXGTLlB5TP35HeWZuGBU7xu003rLcFLdOkD8xvpJoYZy9Kt 3oABXPS5yqtMK+XCNdqmMn+4mOtLwQSMmPCSiQIDAQABo4IBuTCCAbUwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSw MB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQJ QhvwQ5Fl372Z6xqo6fdn8XejTTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBQkgWw5Yb5JD4+3G0YrySi1J0htaDBv BggrBgEFBQcBAQRjMGEwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbTA5 BggrBgEFBQcwAoYtaHR0cDovL2FpYS5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2VydHMvc2NhLmNsaWVudDEu Y3J0MDgGA1UdHwQxMC8wLaAroCmGJ2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3NjYS1jbGll bnQxLmNybDAkBgNVHREEHTAbgRlzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllMCMGA1UdEgQc MBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tLzBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIE MCwwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeTANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEArzrSv2C8PlBBmGuiGrzm2Wma46/KHtXmZYS0bsd43pM66Pc/MsqPE0HD C1GzMFfwB6BfkJn8ijNSIhlgj898WzjvnpM/SO8KStjlB8719ig/xKISrOl5mX55XbFlQtX9 U6MrqRgbDIATxhD9IDr+ryvovDzChqgQj7mt2jYr4mdlRjsjod3H1VY6XglRmaaNGZfsCARM aE/TU5SXIiqauwt5KxNGYAY67QkOBs7O1FkSXpTk7+1MmzJMF4nP8QQ5n8vhVNseF+/Wm7ai 9mtnrkLbaznMsy/ULo/C2yuLUWTbZZbf4EKNmVdme6tUDgYkFjAFOblfA7W1fSPiQGagYzCC BeIwggPKoAMCAQICEGunin0K14jWUQr5WeTntOEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwfTELMAkGA1UE BhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFs IENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24g QXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTE1MTIxNjAxMDAwNVoXDTMwMTIxNjAxMDAwNVowdTELMAkGA1UEBhMC SUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKTAnBgNVBAsTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MSMwIQYDVQQDExpTdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIENsaWVudCBDQTCC ASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAL192vfDon2D9luC/dtbX64eG3XAtRmv mCSsu1d52DXsCR58zJQbCtB2/A5uFqNxWacpXGGtTCRk9dEDBlmixEd8QiLkUfvHpJX/xKnm VkS6Iye8wUbYzMsDzgnpazlPg19dnSqfhM+Cevdfa89VLnUztRr2cgmCfyO9Otrh7LJDPG+4 D8ZnAqDtVB8MKYJL6QgKyVhhaBc4y3bGWxKyXEtx7QIZZGxPwSkzK3WIN+VKNdkiwTubW5PI dopmykwvIjLPqbJK7yPwFZYekKE015OsW6FV+s4DIM8UlVS8pkIsoGGJtMuWjLL4tq2hYQuu N0jhrxK1ljz50hH23gA9cbMCAwEAAaOCAWQwggFgMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNVHSUE FjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADAyBgNVHR8EKzAp MCegJaAjhiFodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zZnNjYS5jcmwwZgYIKwYBBQUHAQEE WjBYMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20wMAYIKwYBBQUHMAKG JGh0dHA6Ly9haWEuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL2NhLmNydDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUJIFsOWG+ SQ+PtxtGK8kotSdIbWgwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUTgvvGqRAW6UXaYcwyjRoQ9BBrvIwPwYDVR0g BDgwNjA0BgRVHSAAMCwwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Bv bGljeTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAgEAi+P3h+wBi4StDwECW5zhIycjBL008HACblIf26HY 0JdOruKbrWDsXUsiI0j/7Crft9S5oxvPiDtVqspBOB/y5uzSns1lZwh7sG96bYBZpcGzGxpF NjDmQbcM3yl3WFIRS4WhNrsOY14V7y2IrUGsvetsD+bjyOngCIVeC/GmsmtbuLOzJ606tEc9 uRbhjTu/b0x2Fo+/e7UkQvKzNeo7OMhijixaULyINBfCBJb+e29bLafgu6JqjOUJ9eXXj20p 6q/CW+uVrZiSW57+q5an2P2i7hP85jQJcy5j4HzA0rSiF3YPhKGAWUxKPMAVGgcYoXzWydOv Z3UDsTDTagXpRDIKQLZo02wrlxY6iMFqvlzsemVf1odhQJmi7Eh5TbxI40kDGcBOBHhwnaOu mZhLP+SWJQnjpLpSlUOj95uf1zo9oz9e0NgIJoz/tdfrBzez76xtDsK0KfUDHt1/q59BvDI7 RX6gVr0fQoCyMczNzCTcRXYHY0tq2J0oT+bsb6sH2b4WVWAiJKnSYaWDjdA70qHX4mq9MIjO /ZskmSY8wtAk24orAc0vwXgYanqNsBX5Yv4sN4Z9VyrwMdLcusP7HJgRdAGKpkR2I9U4zEsN JQJewM7S4Jalo1DyPrLpL2nTET8ZrSl5Utp1UeGp/2deoprGevfnxWB+vHNQiu85o6MxggPM MIIDyAIBATCBiTB1MQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjEpMCcG A1UECxMgU3RhcnRDb20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkxIzAhBgNVBAMTGlN0YXJ0 Q29tIENsYXNzIDEgQ2xpZW50IENBAhBPzaE7pzYviUJyhmHTFBdnMA0GCWCGSAFlAwQCAQUA oIICEzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNjA0MTIw MDMxMjhaMC8GCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEiBCBR6COlvLGy7gB6RYb6ytLCFmlUYby3dYrW3Pfhp86n jzBsBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcN AwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMC AgEoMIGaBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgYwwgYkwdTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0 Q29tIEx0ZC4xKTAnBgNVBAsTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MSMw IQYDVQQDExpTdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIENsaWVudCBDQQIQT82hO6c2L4lCcoZh0xQXZzCB nAYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgYyggYkwdTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29t IEx0ZC4xKTAnBgNVBAsTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MSMwIQYD VQQDExpTdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIENsaWVudCBDQQIQT82hO6c2L4lCcoZh0xQXZzANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQAQX2X6q8RyESPrxBmNsAgpZCJYsZ6jHWlsH1/W/zfRDP1KSy1GKhg3 ioqQaKmoSCWzwJZB27SPOVk/eMtTO+2Q2ax8BbGTWv6OV8aGZG5v/FGmxYx7q1LwAGhVecDV SSwmUIH6XRzXXwb+6+1DB1TIFzpyq8tD9UuUlEi1rAVz+c9gPJxFmDYx59N9OvOk/0KqH8if TMgJJM7UXPSDhhvoTrMyguuyxOCjbC7hJlHVQGZk/5IY0ZBly9s4dUxlF6o4Ujvo1Rw3WdtU ysZ1w8pPyayRy+piqTBM5iD5sbDEV0I8apMRXEZ9pzTbA/knpEjLJwh4H9zZ9NfHWBupMEFW AAAAAAAA --------------ms060206050101060508050105-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 17:42:29 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6095412D7B0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:42:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eaOXioJm8kxb for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6171A12D6FE for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1apmPQ-00067c-1w for gaia@irtf.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:42:24 +0200 To: gaia@irtf.org References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> <570C41E0.5050701@cs.tcd.ie> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: <570C446F.7040603@digitaldissidents.org> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:42:23 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <570C41E0.5050701@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 29cc722430e8f1f6ed904119444c0d49b0f3ee91 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: a2d32f98be707cbcda8602d5fffa976a Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:42:28 -0000 +1 On 04/12/2016 02:31 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 11/04/16 21:52, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: >> I am sorry - but the document has been floating around for 2 years now - >> and just passed IRSG review process.. > > Well yes the latter half of that sentence is correct, but > IRSG review is not an examination and "floating around" > (while accurate) is also perhaps not the best method for > arriving at the best content. > > While I do think this draft could be published as an RFC now > with no harm accruing, my personal prediction is that all > involved will end up happier in the longer term if we do > try to discuss recent comments, which are not insubstantial > (but which are also not showstoppers). I reckon that's true > even if it's also for sure annoying for those who've been > working on this text a while. > > Cheers, > S. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 From nobody Mon Apr 11 17:47:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7018A12D7AD for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:47:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufcIvON_tXRr for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E04E112D85C for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e190so3651228lfe.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:47:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=e2fsBnC+t/d0YweIxiDsEaMMlZAZ1BcXtTBoUgT807U=; b=b7Y00D8OB1JhSuc9GXgerQYyynl/wuRWNzZjPrQqSb/LlrGOsYEGiP3rIzdshGgyHS JzW0tG6ytvlqiqoC7aEPw4drK/7vW5GdvxCZ6bs4I8HxAMmcvXTOpPkpCTLVOsPnWrvV rkufuuixLWpsKb72Ogv5vAuVXldMePWu3fr7B8R07s3H2cULtkKQX8q7M5umVcAry2fQ zrwysL8wzwebeffw5WyRO/rwSYZimUgp9oJIoToUTiKmkemlBOoEsvN9qb3tZdERbqUN m3P8ZTKVUBCNFLUWHUdZ0xjxjLMoqpJjwN5njLHbdwxcDbJnqAnN66cjtOe44xVw8fQd oghA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=e2fsBnC+t/d0YweIxiDsEaMMlZAZ1BcXtTBoUgT807U=; b=JBK14reEb/VjKA6gM8pw/Ys8cuvscA+nzmA5eqshG2VdutxUvriq1Z5DWZYI6OkD3w xAKuS6NAVyuPj/uo9yts0WE06QF8EvpWwu6cisl7Shtyc8twQ4peKr3B7XaOdpHIpILh CERxPoTTNhyYNWq1wBtbXjnJjWh7hddzvDG3CLXZkQgwOLgmqCapBDLitepGYtMt8+V6 WJo6YJvzCruINMyzWw+v7xYogJP0OzTWzbEtzA6BZX4X05atr/9XLtoMg/NMpA9ogpvH 95Bwp/PO8YNWM+l9gN4Kr/HuLAMna2r5KezMqQsC5Im2UIXgujcxI3GcK7725nGR+wbD n8EA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV0gkuBif9ieWecR+bO+IShCeeX7hfa+SrqOzcwsUWG0yglpJ+P8GDv4KU7NLyxJL1CPwP1z2OdAZzR1w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.27.200 with SMTP id b191mr167258lfb.8.1460422033083; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <570C41E0.5050701@cs.tcd.ie> References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> <570C41E0.5050701@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:47:12 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ExV90YHxCLz3yp7VejNDs0P8NP8 Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Stephen Farrell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11402c488112ac05303f0055 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Mitar , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:47:16 -0000 --001a11402c488112ac05303f0055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks Stephen - but I am not sure what Mitar wants! what does he mean by community networks being misinterpreted? arjuna On 12 Apr 2016 01:31, "Stephen Farrell" wrote: > > > On 11/04/16 21:52, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > > I am sorry - but the document has been floating around for 2 years now - > > and just passed IRSG review process.. > > Well yes the latter half of that sentence is correct, but > IRSG review is not an examination and "floating around" > (while accurate) is also perhaps not the best method for > arriving at the best content. > > While I do think this draft could be published as an RFC now > with no harm accruing, my personal prediction is that all > involved will end up happier in the longer term if we do > try to discuss recent comments, which are not insubstantial > (but which are also not showstoppers). I reckon that's true > even if it's also for sure annoying for those who've been > working on this text a while. > > Cheers, > S. > > > --001a11402c488112ac05303f0055 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Stephen - but I am not sure what Mitar wants!

what does he mean by community networks being misinterpreted= ?=C2=A0

arjuna

On 12 Apr 2016 01:31, "Stephen Farrell"= ; <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.i= e> wrote:

On 11/04/16 21:52, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:
> I am sorry - but the document has been floating around for 2 years now= -
> and just passed IRSG review process..

Well yes the latter half of that sentence is correct, but
IRSG review is not an examination and "floating around"
(while accurate) is also perhaps not the best method for
arriving at the best content.

While I do think this draft could be published as an RFC now
with no harm accruing, my personal prediction is that all
involved will end up happier in the longer term if we do
try to discuss recent comments, which are not insubstantial
(but which are also not showstoppers). I reckon that's true
even if it's also for sure annoying for those who've been
working on this text a while.

Cheers,
S.


--001a11402c488112ac05303f0055-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 17:49:19 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269E912D882 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:49:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cab-JRIfgwva for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC93012D885 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c126so3603702lfb.2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:49:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=3svnO8CcVQP3ZeDeMcV2MzectNzGF/SquaZ34FpcR50=; b=f5H3wbC6ysdnMtZ3/0dc8vRwGnZ2oBcUXeTgznn2meXthbgVdEN/x/in3Mzujr/9HY h5jdQgrr3RdCyFe8GVz6vXvNMODOiwqCoDJtx5KFWaIRboEVX8fgQ0MUUtpYQ4vP03+O 7X0BKhbFKHZcN7AHJmJqlOO1aoXO/JJsWOnNeCsSrd0rb0KjLQw3uPdCry2a+rPkVea1 6iy6OfrBUqIy/GUb+6XNNFhpiGntrV7N6YKp2qn34C+v6kmU7uMyph5j//eTi+zSPOZ4 BjClAfI7nvPzPNnPjpTsLkED/Qu3fu0bYb6EKw70bqoNsPnvWvB2Eh1+94TyG+mahAvg 7MLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=3svnO8CcVQP3ZeDeMcV2MzectNzGF/SquaZ34FpcR50=; b=lsEtLM4Qs59O8WOmmEq2rAtywiLtvKWoQ29FN9UISdIpURnYhU3QB/iCVIoDqpUxkw +9qi7roOQqWNpnrhe34zb4PCovIqyItR61wHDdwnHcQZUyhjOMQqldf1wF7J8h6o9/1F 3NJ3dp4kDCAGxOATiLtUz6lfWCzijqZbr3BcbEYFKkdOXddAbQaaZXzITzGfiXJeH4MX NLNmJtJH6iAdsPKmvL4iXxjF/2pImzuOkYfimoMUBtB0LQ8KLvrVEMD9wXiYVzfBSdAB BnW3wrERB1VQPkkm1gb3pQC0NMedHVHeWnmupcYDJrnJoqC3B27Rghg8+4livpNKXC6z bzBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWZmVYmaH0Bt4JD2OTpmurJYsyCiaoN36hHhzGxjRoLcy9OUVdbOf0jMSLH8mlbJKzyfmlpwRT6nLAJTg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.89.136 with SMTP id n130mr139079lfb.52.1460422154028; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:49:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:49:13 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sgjhRYA7qmbaNSfHsJFaCfX2iBM Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11412b14b691da05303f0740 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:49:18 -0000 --001a11412b14b691da05303f0740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 you should probably go and check the gaia archives when Jose asked for feedback.. we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback... I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation? On 12 Apr 2016 00:03, "Mitar" wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > wrote: > > and stating that we consulted only Guifi is not appropriate considering > that > > we have been working with the GAIA group sending mails after mails asking > > for feedback and using the feedback to revise the draft.. > > Please, show me an e-mail where you asked for such feedback on any > mailing list with community networks? > > > we have people from other CNs who have contributed to this draft and gave > > feedback.. > > Great. :-) > > But yes, continue locked inside the processes knowing that you are > misrepresenting community networks. > > > Mitar > > > if you want to write a new document, please do with your thoughts. - > thank > > arjuna > > > > On 11 April 2016 at 16:46, Mitar wrote: > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Jose Saldana > wrote: > >> > The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the > >> > first > >> > version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion, > >> > the > >> > draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG > >> > review. > >> > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially > modifying > >> > it. > >> > >> It is amazing that in whole this work until now this was the first > >> time that information about this process has come to the community > >> networks at all. And I am probably on all mailing lists there are > >> about community networks. > >> > >> So I would really be questioning how it is possible to create such a > >> document without involvement of the whole segment you are trying to > >> describe? From my reading it seems you have consulted only with > >> guifi.net community network, UPC, and not much others? And even that > >> was without any broader survey or something? > >> > >> I got some private comments explaining agreement with my comments and > >> surprises how community networks are depicted in your draft. > >> > >> So now you have a decision to make. Are you going further with > >> something you know lacks clearly needed improvements, or you go on > >> just because you are stuck in the process. What would really be the > >> benefit to the broader Internet community if it contains such (I would > >> claim) invalid information? > >> > >> Please point me to messages to wireless community mailing lists where > >> gaia task force send any announcement about this work, ask community > >> networks for input, reported to them on progress and process? > >> Explained deadlines and so on? > >> > >> > We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those that we can > >> > reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will never > have a > >> > document about this. > >> > >> This would be loss for the whole Internet community. No document is > >> better than invalid document, no? > >> > >> > The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we > >> > will have to go back again, and this is something we should avoid. > >> > >> Why? Isn't the rational thing to try to get to something useful? What > >> is the purpose of this document? To have something published? Or to > >> have something published which can guide and inform the Internet > >> community in a meaningful way? Currently, the document pretty badly > >> represents wireless community networks to the extent that I would even > >> consider it harmful to represent them in this way. Or at least rename > >> "community networks" in your document to something else, like > >> "community operated Internet providers" and let "community networks" > >> be defined in some other document. > >> > >> > >> Mitar > >> > >> -- > >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ > >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gaia mailing list > >> gaia@irtf.org > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > > > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > --001a11412b14b691da05303f0740 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

you should probably go and check the gaia archives when Jose= asked for feedback..

we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for fee= dback...

I still dont understand whats your point about this misinter= pretation?

On 12 Apr 2016 00:03, "Mitar" <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan= @cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> and stating that we consulted only Guifi is not appropriate considerin= g that
> we have been working with the GAIA group sending mails after mails ask= ing
> for feedback and using the feedback to revise the draft..

Please, show me an e-mail where you asked for such feedback on any
mailing list with community networks?

> we have people from other CNs who have contributed to this draft and g= ave
> feedback..

Great. :-)

But yes, continue locked inside the processes knowing that you are
misrepresenting community networks.


Mitar

> if you want to write a new document, please do with your thoughts. - t= hank
> arjuna
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 16:46, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:
>> > The main question now is this: this work started a long time = ago (the
>> > first
>> > version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and di= scussion,
>> > the
>> > draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the= IRSG
>> > review.
>> > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantiall= y modifying
>> > it.
>>
>> It is amazing that in whole this work until now this was the first=
>> time that information about this process has come to the community=
>> networks at all. And I am probably on all mailing lists there are<= br> >> about community networks.
>>
>> So I would really be questioning how it is possible to create such= a
>> document without involvement of the whole segment you are trying t= o
>> describe? From my reading it seems you have consulted only with >> = guifi.net community network, UPC, and not much others? And even that >> was without any broader survey or something?
>>
>> I got some private comments explaining agreement with my comments = and
>> surprises how community networks are depicted in your draft.
>>
>> So now you have a decision to make. Are you going further with
>> something you know lacks clearly needed improvements, or you go on=
>> just because you are stuck in the process. What would really be th= e
>> benefit to the broader Internet community if it contains such (I w= ould
>> claim) invalid information?
>>
>> Please point me to messages to wireless community mailing lists wh= ere
>> gaia task force send any announcement about this work, ask communi= ty
>> networks for input, reported to them on progress and process?
>> Explained deadlines and so on?
>>
>> > We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those th= at we can
>> > reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will n= ever have a
>> > document about this.
>>
>> This would be loss for the whole Internet community. No document i= s
>> better than invalid document, no?
>>
>> > The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we
>> > will have to go back again, and this is something we should a= void.
>>
>> Why? Isn't the rational thing to try to get to something usefu= l? What
>> is the purpose of this document? To have something published? Or t= o
>> have something published which can guide and inform the Internet >> community in a meaningful way? Currently, the document pretty badl= y
>> represents wireless community networks to the extent that I would = even
>> consider it harmful to represent them in this way. Or at least ren= ame
>> "community networks" in your document to something else,= like
>> "community operated Internet providers" and let "co= mmunity networks"
>> be defined in some other document.
>>
>>
>> Mitar
>>
>> --
>> http://mitar.tnode.com/
>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gaia mailing list
>> gaia@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >
>
>
>
> --
> Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d



--
ht= tp://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
--001a11412b14b691da05303f0740-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 18:13:00 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F3912E091 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:12:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id umQ9Af_L1CJK for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43D5612DA0B for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x233.google.com with SMTP id gy3so96112087igb.1 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:12:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=8VWMkuTTi5/1y7UPz+pvEv6OQyoA5uiDHO2WLxr+n7c=; b=TNHjh/amR9HlU1H0sslnebPpNffzCuXjsaJCr2GKgIE4iWorEGz1JtdTE8DwAiAW+d JlwUMy1bVdF0wviZ400w6rpYZNyYflPNTUFIQLZpYQqU82xmNzJ2RkNZ49EcZHBoF+mv cuGO0xga+hL/HeSoFQoT215dCVPzHCwnJ2WmsXLbd+Y/RcwxPXeWz/BFWNXIaljWkHSQ 5+rtroTvn7pB0QyIEJSjswDYqN9PeRGx4csHPgP66XL/E6DRYnMS7IpVJmasLXsH5cFF picwBFKDOtyC51EuZMArq2AJd5KBRXuIrlaJdlF3Ql0ACcazcB9+0Yc3spiVwlvarnqa KzBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=8VWMkuTTi5/1y7UPz+pvEv6OQyoA5uiDHO2WLxr+n7c=; b=Gx5xcVbqdxcM1UQh33VbNvbpJacuSfM9KrY6zl9FeeuHI48crQ2l8GZMyGGIYC0/D3 B1HhDauv3r2NEaD2b44xazpO/OPIqvF/Rs8yTeZm1tzBe2kCUtP+2FDQEQkiYt76Yjow cI8IhF5RNV79ZUoCeA9lekOf44tYPFU0GoHV/08Z5opAWIWo4yQyWO5R/AQ5I0spbdEp qXxCsIh3QUWUDlcL20lHnwkDxIA/YlyZA484/Rj0RWdNLB/tdFa01VlMk7w007VdXvk2 OcuUAKRSzmUwSUG8FPSb2OU2wgT/qQ5Z2hRwsuSYM0e5OLQHbvPcVlE4sWjcAaumg9xJ o/Ug== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK8AjhlEWzXkw8he/daQ/YRrx7fADQaS/JA2/jNS0dQJockaqqIhAlXzTLeIc5MRP51vUL1iM7SE7gLGQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.232.47 with SMTP id tl15mr20308355igc.64.1460423576620; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:12:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:12:56 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:12:59 -0000 Hi! On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback... That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists should just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them? You are working on describing community networks, then it would be useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and get their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I remember seeing messages around: http://p2pvalue.eu/ I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on organic dissemination of information through various means. In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it now. I responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with some effort it could happen also in previously. > I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation? I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that community networks are mostly presented through the economic perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This is like saying that people participate in free software projects because software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of other reasons as well. Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a survey and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, why they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and read them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which analyze motivations behind people doing community networks? What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that your data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people participate. But I know from my long participation in these networks, that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet community get understanding of this community networks (and other alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice because after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they just want cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the heart of the community. Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Internet for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix the antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you will do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe, but probably not. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Mon Apr 11 18:19:59 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C40612E79B for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:19:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S7aK5DygbArg for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0D4C12E6BC for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e190so4390654lfe.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:19:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=e6NcMXTcwROZZkqv/RDN9RoeecwFS6IseHLLTy2mwHA=; b=Kv/LNKlwVZORmrEOdprfSBkxCYtWpBbh0c7n6Byp35aNnz7vvW++mSCbIPVtsERk7a UWlTYTFQg2kIVwzjjLFZT3Z/NSuan55McA0rzfrsITQHKb56RiqlnCGHHqpfJ1/xeMNS 5Exfi3m2bDSI3YEgTYoVuO+lJ8lNSaKaUY5xwwLSjcTOP3s+vHCipxoF+hP99cyPY08A 4hcAyg2dww1MhZM2cYPehAX4Ejg8ytpVNE3fcjoOYKjf+njmk10DdMpo5LfJQZIj0teH 6vXbEKexDVjXVibiB5wtND3FDcVlNREgHUonuZo4tFP/u1QjVP7TKa6bjFuwufug701O UGhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=e6NcMXTcwROZZkqv/RDN9RoeecwFS6IseHLLTy2mwHA=; b=lUg5saR0pxG3jXOxKvPC7vyc3M46EPS/oUIClcTWOZFCkqASoP7EL3XOofCvYNEzqu 4QWDdk8LJQSLCqELUGZmiIzFgO40MUzqFGVss3gi66kb6nVTEyO8dEKoKWNI2KXMCTJs itq0nVQRI2FRQJdDXb00JVa8eY8j0hr0KwT1FvilWgMu4yCe9/euylo7YQprO9w3AiLM a4KfH8hYW0c8V/MV79EJnw8jLgg2YTpjU8J7ii8VEAMNpdEeEgjC0VNG2tezm36VZTYJ j805A/waJS0Pv4lesTCSKd+VwYYLpfx81LiPWtRU+TTWhdFCGLamgsjNqH3UMhLyGrtv uxSw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXyq3my1FyLonA1OqMadBck1WsrOPO0VIqvPdMjZjhBXor1VQrWJkfSjkgL7M17xhIkAIV0M+otV+1ZKg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.254.164 with SMTP id aj4mr201277lbd.104.1460423993770; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:19:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:19:53 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZmAScKtaBt-iYO6Bxh13_b5X6V0 Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134dfb45ecb5a05303f757b Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:19:58 -0000 --001a1134dfb45ecb5a05303f757b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Mitar, I am on the road and hence my replies are far too cryptic :) - and not formal or detailed.. I got some offline emails from Barath Raghavan who knows you - so I have now understood what you are trying to say.. I think Jose can probably reply in detail about these questions since he has been working hard on this draft.. my assumption was coauthors like Bart and Leandro have done surveys before via the confine project and this could have been reflected in the draft..maybe they can comment.. arjuna On 12 Apr 2016 02:12, "Mitar" wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > wrote: > > we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback... > > That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists should > just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them? > > You are working on describing community networks, then it would be > useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and get > their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I remember > seeing messages around: > > http://p2pvalue.eu/ > > I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on organic > dissemination of information through various means. > > In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one > e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it now. I > responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with some > effort it could happen also in previously. > > > I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation? > > I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many > issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that > community networks are mostly presented through the economic > perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This is > like saying that people participate in free software projects because > software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of other > reasons as well. > > Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a survey > and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, why > they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and read > them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences > approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a > document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite > other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which > analyze motivations behind people doing community networks? > > What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that your > data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people > participate. But I know from my long participation in these networks, > that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and > especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet > community get understanding of this community networks (and other > alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice because > after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they just want > cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the heart of > the community. > > Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Internet > for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know > that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered > members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer > comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix the > antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you will > do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe, but > probably not. > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > --001a1134dfb45ecb5a05303f757b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mitar,
I am on the road and hence my replies are far too cryptic :) - and not for= mal or detailed..

I got some offline emails from Barath Raghavan who knows you= - so I have now understood what you are trying to say..

I think Jose can probably reply in detail about these questi= ons since he has been working hard on this draft..

my assumption was coauthors like Bart and Leandro have done = surveys before via the confine project and this could have been reflected i= n the draft..maybe they can comment..

arjuna

On 12 Apr 2016 02:12, "Mitar" <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan= @cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback...
That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists should
just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them?

You are working on describing community networks, then it would be
useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and get
their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I remember
seeing messages around:

http:/= /p2pvalue.eu/

I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on organic
dissemination of information through various means.

In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one
e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it now. I
responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with some
effort it could happen also in previously.

> I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation?=

I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many
issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that
community networks are mostly presented through the economic
perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This is
like saying that people participate in free software projects because
software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of other
reasons as well.

Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a survey
and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, why
they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and read
them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences
approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a
document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite
other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which
analyze motivations behind people doing community networks?

What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that your
data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people
participate. But I know from my long participation in these networks,
that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and
especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet
community get understanding of this community networks (and other
alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice because
after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they just want<= br> cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the heart of=
the community.

Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Internet
for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know
that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered
members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer
comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix the
antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you will
do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe, but
probably not.


Mitar

--
ht= tp://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
--001a1134dfb45ecb5a05303f757b-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 19:04:43 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB9812DDF8 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:04:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gfFUh56w7zvf for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 470A412DD14 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e190so5369413lfe.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:04:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=di0IGq+WMUWbG4QD+7k/M97u3DtkDottWo0airg3zqo=; b=p4R2vNA8NYYt4tbj5NF4OG+MBr94eTaOLAhpiPIyX502Msgre0b9AVutAWNTZEZ9sb 3qu8TuotxP1gTF9igs9EzDv8zef2xbuPMRDCPIca5ZsftX77dsWni3h5j/DQtnsoWtmS T+Rvy4lbN9JiabEUKlM6FallHeGd6F76mD8rijeJooLTtYEuNdOqHFzwtvSb77K2MWKP WAXpXNNtb+hM64E4yLgnmW27vTiMSIHd5gbZhNOUCF7j6FR3hCsxJaqIwvynBdNs0Rye egiofKy4KCjnbBZJzELP26NeIhhajPTcVHTO/37Hve8k7nMTakEYtG7bLSG6LF8FPUXW FprQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=di0IGq+WMUWbG4QD+7k/M97u3DtkDottWo0airg3zqo=; b=GfRWAwUqqnDFuf01AeWDjSqTLxGnKdo02TEKPz0BBRnFdPjj1H45VAWumkK7xM7BYc F+1Pe24p61pnUUrngugk2uNkhWgk14ZiX3CU3Tmp0iMBxDuUIQ3vRdxAoN0hdbOoxYlV 6Dgqq2DL4WWfgFgGe2LHDnNSS/sc0HqGm0iHIQvPROrSip8D+5HZXoo9PeAn7z0FNP7/ OnX8OF/nr5w5J+gngAPjinDbEpwYMwG2yF9Whwy8EEPODQnt3nPIlloErpRltzGGn/LC eRryalv3stYk+zrM3n3WpDFEBeHYqPSdDn13t8cuJDj3ERQpTP27lz5II+QVHI11AVSy /YDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FULXd2DAaJzoIVnTzBB7l787NK6g+B21a9/+snfknhDuu9zFJJCPU9X4UEn2KsUNrr2kqfZirJhkEldyA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.198.132 with SMTP id jc4mr272930lbc.120.1460426675218; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:04:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:04:35 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 27gPRJFQuXckFnoz5C866NBbO-w Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c329403270dd053040150f Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:04:42 -0000 --001a11c329403270dd053040150f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello Mitar - So the first point I am trying to understand is when you said CNs are not represented properly and we are biased from our understanding/working with a CN like Guifi - how does a CN like Guifi differ from the points you are raising: "free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that alternative is possible) - building a new type of commons - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a say in operations - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the community (eg. http://tidepools.co/) - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other extreme situations - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own hands" Isnt a CN like Guifi doing exactly this? Are you saying that a specific section is not written correctly or are you saying the whole document does not illustrate the points you have raised. My confusion comes from this. regards On 10 April 2016 at 19:53, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan > slovenija (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some > feedback on the draft. I am glad people are working on it. My list of > comments is in no particular order, mostly in order of reading. I am > sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the draft. > > Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From > our network and from my experience talking to other community > networks, I would claim that many share also much more altruistic > motivations. For example, our whole network is build around principle > that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at home > (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us > will share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course > there are other motivations why people participate, and everyone has a > different mix of those motivations, but I definitely think that the > list should be extended to include: > > - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism > - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, > anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that > alternative is possible) > - building a new type of commons > - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a > say in operations > - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the > community (eg. http://tidepools.co/) > - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other > extreme situations > - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, > empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own > hands > > An example of another network describing itself with much more of what > I am writing than what is currently on the list: > https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh > > All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I > remembered without much thinking) for many community networks. I do > not think the list in section 4.2 can ever be comprehensive, but I was > really taken aback from its economy-centric bias at the moment. Most > community networks do not operate on that level. It is of course > present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are > doing it. > > Section 4.4, technologies employed: > > "Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some > villages." > > Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages > mentioned? Optical systems can also be used elsewhere. > > Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no > fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially > in high-density urban environments because of no interference. > > Section 4.5, typical scenarios: > > I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any > network I know of outgrow and changed through time inside all these > categories. Community networks maybe start somewhere (like urban or > rural area), but then they grow and spread over the whole country, > then start connecting with other countries. > > Section 5, classification of alternative networks: > > Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited > perspective. I would claim that most alternative networks go beyond > just incentives, but exist because of various beliefs: about how > networks should operate, who should have control over them, the > importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc. > > Section 5.1, community networks: > > As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list > and I think you should include at least ones I listed above. But > probably you should do a survey and ask community networks what are > their goals and motivations, instead of trying to guess them. (If you > have done such a survey, I would love to see data.) > > Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default. > > Typical scenarios: all > > Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be > small, city only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are > focused on one region, some are distributed around larger region, > connected with VPN together. > > "There is a shared platform (e.g. a web site) where a minimum > coordination is performed. This way, community members with the right > permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control > over the overall operation of the network (e.g. IP addresses, > routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in > the network)." > > This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community > networks with much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with > IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible. > > Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how > control over the routing of the network has anything with the > existence of the shared platform? In wlan slovenija network we also > use a web shared platform, but that platform does not control the > network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even > without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about > use of IP space, and learning how to configure their nodes. > > So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core > network's resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries, > etc.) are managed. > > "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the > system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new > segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall > characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity > to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to > the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the > previous and the new extent of the network." > > Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with > "autonomous system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) > > So what exactly is the property which differentiates community > networks? Maybe there is none. Maybe community networks are simply > trying to (re)build the Internet, but this time having infrastructure > owned by participants, which are not just consumers, but are > participating. > > I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and > that people own the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This > should be more clearly explained. So it is not so much about > technology in community networks, but about who owns and controls > equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates the network > growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers, > participants, people gets blurred. > > "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she > has contributed. > > Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for > backbone nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track > ownership of equipment, because they do not care about ownership if it > is operating according to common principles. And if it is not, it > should not be in the network no matter who owns the equipment. > > Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party > stakeholders > > "VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an > incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for > sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who > in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role." > > I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section > really do that. In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/ > movement is listed, but no shares or money or any incentive structure > is in place there for people to share their extra Internet > connectivity. > > So I would change this paragraph to: > > "VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, > thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users > get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by > the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. But > VNOs can also operate on gift-economy principles, where participants > contribute to the commons by sharing their resources knowing that this > benefits all." > > Section 6.2.1, Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless links > > "Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who > design, deploy and manage wireless networks." > > Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of > scale and mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is > so popular in alternative networks. You can get a device for $10. And > you can get this because everyone is producing this hardware, and the > hardware is not just made for the alternative networks. In contrast, > traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for them. Even > if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number > of WiFi routers produced for the global market. > > Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that > needed? Why properties and descriptions of those standards should be > in this draft? They belong to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In > this draft we can just reference those standards. Like what of all > this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general text > which is true for any use: > > "802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for > long range rural communications in TV white space frequencies and > first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16 > (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio > ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8 > MHz channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the > default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 100 km is possible with special > scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 is specifically customized > for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined for more > distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots > destined for nearby CPEs. > > Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS) > and a connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation > spectrum database. Once the base station receives the allowed TV > channels, it communicates a preferred operating white space TV channel > with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a coexistence > mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations aware > of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same > network." > > Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols > > "A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State > Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]." > > Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/, > which is far from the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in > practice, ETX metric is used, which is not even mentioned in RFC3626. > > Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many > networks, and it is even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you > want to include a routing protocol for alternative networks with IETF > standard, you should include this one for sure. > > Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources > > It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be > some special prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs. > But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes > will be much further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just > this distance already influences that the users of open network are > prioritized less (they have higher packet loss, lower bitrate, which > is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate). > > In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself > on different frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh > networks ran everything (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs > on the same channel, but with 5 GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band > devices this is often separated now. > > Section 7.3., services provided > > What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the > Internet and networks in general? This looks pretty useless section > which would not inform anyone reading this draft of anything about > alternative networks. > > If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized > services developed just for community/alternative networks: > > - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN > - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org > - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ > - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms > - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries > - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices > - Community radio/TV stations > > What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet > access. For example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless > communities which made networks in villages just to be able to play > games. > > Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies > > "Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in > many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations." > > That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles > which are important in many other alternative networks. So the > question how informative this sentence is, because for some maybe this > is true, for some it is not, and some probably are build just around > this. Others probably address this with innovative solutions like > internal file servers. > > At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs > (https://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To > me is unclear. > > Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft: > > https://rhizomatica.org/ > http://www.servalproject.org/ > http://villagetelco.org/ > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a11c329403270dd053040150f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Mitar -

So the first point I am t= rying to understand is when you said CNs are not represented properly and w= e are biased from our understanding/working with a CN like Guifi - how does= a CN like Guifi differ from the points you are raising:

=C2=A0"free sharing of Interne= t connectivity, altruism
- various forms of activism (network neutrality guara= ntees,
anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that
alternativ= e is possible)
- building a new type of commons
- not being just a consumer, but acti= ve participant, wanting to have a
say in operations

- provide local services to local= people, tighten/reconnect the
community (eg.=C2=A0= http://tidepools.co/)
- provide alternativ= e service in case of natural disasters and other
extreme situations
- wanting to have= a space for experimentation and teaching of others,
empowering others to take t= heir Internet connectivity into their own
hands"

Isnt a CN like Guifi doing exactly this?=C2=A0

Are you saying that a specific section is not written correctly o= r are you saying the whole document does not illustrate the points you have= raised. My confusion comes from this.

regard= s

=

On 10 April 2016 = at 19:53, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan
slovenija (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some
feedback on the draft. I am glad people are working on it. My list of
comments is in no particular order, mostly in order of reading. I am
sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the draft.

Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From
our network and from my experience talking to other community
networks, I would claim that many share also much more altruistic
motivations. For example, our whole network is build around principle
that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at home
(FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us
will share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course
there are other motivations why people participate, and everyone has a
different mix of those motivations, but I definitely think that the
list should be extended to include:

- free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism
- various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees,
anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that
alternative is possible)
- building a new type of commons
- not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a
say in operations
- provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the
community (eg. http://tidepools.co/)
- provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other
extreme situations
- wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others,
empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own
hands

An example of another network describing itself with much more of what
I am writing than what is currently on the list:
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh

All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I
remembered without much thinking) for many community networks. I do
not think the list in section 4.2 can ever be comprehensive, but I was
really taken aback from its economy-centric bias at the moment. Most
community networks do not operate on that level. It is of course
present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are
doing it.

Section 4.4, technologies employed:

"Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some=
villages."

Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages mentioned? Optical systems can also be used elsewhere.

Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no
fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially
in high-density urban environments because of no interference.

Section 4.5, typical scenarios:

I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any
network I know of outgrow and changed through time inside all these
categories. Community networks maybe start somewhere (like urban or
rural area), but then they grow and spread over the whole country,
then start connecting with other countries.

Section 5, classification of alternative networks:

Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited
perspective. I would claim that most alternative networks go beyond
just incentives, but exist because of various beliefs: about how
networks should operate, who should have control over them, the
importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc.

Section 5.1, community networks:

As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list
and I think you should include at least ones I listed above. But
probably you should do a survey and ask community networks what are
their goals and motivations, instead of trying to guess them. (If you
have done such a survey, I would love to see data.)

Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default.<= br>
Typical scenarios: all

Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be
small, city only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are
focused on one region, some are distributed around larger region,
connected with VPN together.

"There is a shared platform (e.g.=C2=A0 a web site) where a minimum coordination is performed.=C2=A0 This way, community members with the right=
permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control
over the overall operation of the network (e.g.=C2=A0 IP addresses,
routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in
the network)."

This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community
networks with much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with
IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible.

Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see = how
control over the routing of the network has anything with the
existence of the shared platform? In wlan slovenija network we also
use a web shared platform, but that platform does not control the
network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even
without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about
use of IP space, and learning how to configure their nodes.

So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core
network's resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries,
etc.) are managed.

"A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the
system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new
segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall
characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity
to further extend the network.=C2=A0 Once these link segments are joined to=
the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the
previous and the new extent of the network."

Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment"= with
"autonomous system" and "community network" with "= Internet". :-)

So what exactly is the property which differentiates community
networks? Maybe there is none. Maybe community networks are simply
trying to (re)build the Internet, but this time having infrastructure
owned by participants, which are not just consumers, but are
participating.

I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and
that people own the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This
should be more clearly explained. So it is not so much about
technology in community networks, but about who owns and controls
equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates the network
growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers,
participants, people gets blurred.

"In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has contributed.

Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for
backbone nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track
ownership of equipment, because they do not care about ownership if it
is operating according to common principles. And if it is not, it
should not be in the network no matter who owns the equipment.

Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
stakeholders

"VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an
incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for
sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who
in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role."

I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section
really do that. In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/
movement is listed, but no shares or money or any incentive structure
is in place there for people to share their extra Internet
connectivity.

So I would change this paragraph to:

"VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users
get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by
the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. But
VNOs can also operate on gift-economy principles, where participants
contribute to the commons by sharing their resources knowing that this
benefits all."

Section 6.2.1,=C2=A0 Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless link= s

"Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who=
design, deploy and manage wireless networks."

Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of
scale and mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is
so popular in alternative networks. You can get a device for $10. And
you can get this because everyone is producing this hardware, and the
hardware is not just made for the alternative networks. In contrast,
traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for them. Even
if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number
of WiFi routers produced for the global market.

Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that
needed? Why properties and descriptions of those standards should be
in this draft? They belong to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In
this draft we can just reference those standards. Like what of all
this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general text
which is true for any use:

"802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for long range rural communications in TV white space frequencies and
first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16
(WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio
ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8
MHz channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the
default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 100 km is possible with special
scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 is specifically customized
for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined for more
distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots
destined for nearby CPEs.

Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS)
and a connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation
spectrum database. Once the base station receives the allowed TV
channels, it communicates a preferred operating white space TV channel
with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a coexistence
mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations aware
of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same
network."

Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols

"A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]."

Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/,
which is far from the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in
practice, ETX metric is used, which is not even mentioned in RFC3626.

Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many
networks, and it is even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you
want to include a routing protocol for alternative networks with IETF
standard, you should include this one for sure.

Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources

It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be
some special prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs.
But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes
will be much further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just
this distance already influences that the users of open network are
prioritized less (they have higher packet loss, lower bitrate, which
is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate).

In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself
on different frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh
networks ran everything (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs
on the same channel, but with 5 GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band
devices this is often separated now.

Section 7.3., services provided

What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the
Internet and networks in general? This looks pretty useless section
which would not inform anyone reading this draft of anything about
alternative networks.

If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized
services developed just for community/alternative networks:

- Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org
- Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/
- Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms
- VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries
- Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices - Community radio/TV stations

What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet
access. For example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless
communities which made networks in villages just to be able to play
games.

Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies

"Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in<= br> many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations."

That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles
which are important in many other alternative networks. So the
question how informative this sentence is, because for some maybe this
is true, for some it is not, and some probably are build just around
this. Others probably address this with innovative solutions like
internal file servers.

At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs
(h= ttps://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To
me is unclear.

Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft:
h= ttps://rhizomatica.org/
http://www.servalproject.org/
h= ttp://villagetelco.org/


Mitar

--
ht= tp://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



--
--001a11c329403270dd053040150f-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 19:08:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6FF812DD63 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:08:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id garLSApl4NIk for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AFB812DD5B for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id j11so5394563lfb.1 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:08:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=JCkEZXR5puCLoK971dygr0cqYlWwWjLQ7HawuG/xVJo=; b=tGRDrGPY80IBCSJ0AUtGLZbY1QHDNti1sCQHE+QSrLsjL+bnrZDu/9kfiY2VRGX55r Drsi7C6uGRIlm2RI5G6MVu8Pj8CFbuJlewHpPWB2b6XgfGzKzsTXduyi7FO+lNIVVOtF Nzrcx4TuHiUjiCJr65rks5DqNRsdLT/FGP3aGCKhyHOLA0vOT3rGz9std1VkMlNISHC2 9jQJC4A2iyoI8F7C/7de3xQUfPFzH2SiPLR3z/4X5jXLQPORoL/Bq51PdMs5pz/SuVca 9nJ3urhb1aNmZnXeHQAHxTWlUyRmw3c5K+3NuguVqw3Ww9mLYb6apZErOCDc9DH/RWtU CL2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=JCkEZXR5puCLoK971dygr0cqYlWwWjLQ7HawuG/xVJo=; b=lnMAOSneGjtl3aJzlMfexv90xdAKYcmKP7NpwPtty3JByiD2Qc9pHF5n/4DvF2yQHs Hze01KGDA52Rq9GQvvw4Dl/ZAgZA2s7SXDIxAzeWaOt+82arQpQWFL2mQ7wsDtMD0RAN a0Jt33PCA9+k5rIjrtW+umT/wpIib5xhKbGilOXAweqE4QjzQKdb5NPUD596el2EQJwk X/vvo/0xW+JfetZ9hyXg+pXrEa0LwOnUmAIfwTDxm8PGKfC1yrYrwlSWy2RU+nx39A/h 3l4NnJUAwYCVtjGy0FJFS4H966DLD/dufMK7mhXzdOf9IIVkcbrS743/gLmyj8FhjuMH sLRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWLecTczgiB49gXGlGCJIu8CBTR1zbclD2bnboMoIWa5NW5sL8Gx+WavkePdN+UgYqZAqMWb0yJhfkDDg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.27.200 with SMTP id b191mr289072lfb.8.1460426902755; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:08:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:08:22 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nhErs1JSraI4GR938GlksWbuyNk Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11402c48c2649805304022e2 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:08:30 -0000 --001a11402c48c2649805304022e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Regarding the questionnaire - Bart and Leandro - did some work on this before cited in the draft: Avonts, J., Braem, B., and C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire based Examination of Community Networks", Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on (pp. 8-15) , 2013. So would you be able to give us some examples of how you forsee what we should have asked? Regards On 11 April 2016 at 22:04, Arjuna Sathiaseelan < arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Hello Mitar - > > So the first point I am trying to understand is when you said CNs are not > represented properly and we are biased from our understanding/working with > a CN like Guifi - how does a CN like Guifi differ from the points you are > raising: > > "free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism > - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, > anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that > alternative is possible) > - building a new type of commons > - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a > say in operations > - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the > community (eg. http://tidepools.co/) > - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other > extreme situations > - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, > empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own > hands" > > Isnt a CN like Guifi doing exactly this? > > Are you saying that a specific section is not written correctly or are you > saying the whole document does not illustrate the points you have raised. > My confusion comes from this. > > regards > > > On 10 April 2016 at 19:53, Mitar wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan >> slovenija (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some >> feedback on the draft. I am glad people are working on it. My list of >> comments is in no particular order, mostly in order of reading. I am >> sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the draft. >> >> Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From >> our network and from my experience talking to other community >> networks, I would claim that many share also much more altruistic >> motivations. For example, our whole network is build around principle >> that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at home >> (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us >> will share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course >> there are other motivations why people participate, and everyone has a >> different mix of those motivations, but I definitely think that the >> list should be extended to include: >> >> - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism >> - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, >> anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that >> alternative is possible) >> - building a new type of commons >> - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a >> say in operations >> - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the >> community (eg. http://tidepools.co/) >> - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other >> extreme situations >> - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, >> empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own >> hands >> >> An example of another network describing itself with much more of what >> I am writing than what is currently on the list: >> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh >> >> All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I >> remembered without much thinking) for many community networks. I do >> not think the list in section 4.2 can ever be comprehensive, but I was >> really taken aback from its economy-centric bias at the moment. Most >> community networks do not operate on that level. It is of course >> present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are >> doing it. >> >> Section 4.4, technologies employed: >> >> "Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some >> villages." >> >> Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages >> mentioned? Optical systems can also be used elsewhere. >> >> Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no >> fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially >> in high-density urban environments because of no interference. >> >> Section 4.5, typical scenarios: >> >> I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any >> network I know of outgrow and changed through time inside all these >> categories. Community networks maybe start somewhere (like urban or >> rural area), but then they grow and spread over the whole country, >> then start connecting with other countries. >> >> Section 5, classification of alternative networks: >> >> Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited >> perspective. I would claim that most alternative networks go beyond >> just incentives, but exist because of various beliefs: about how >> networks should operate, who should have control over them, the >> importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc. >> >> Section 5.1, community networks: >> >> As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list >> and I think you should include at least ones I listed above. But >> probably you should do a survey and ask community networks what are >> their goals and motivations, instead of trying to guess them. (If you >> have done such a survey, I would love to see data.) >> >> Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default. >> >> Typical scenarios: all >> >> Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be >> small, city only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are >> focused on one region, some are distributed around larger region, >> connected with VPN together. >> >> "There is a shared platform (e.g. a web site) where a minimum >> coordination is performed. This way, community members with the right >> permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control >> over the overall operation of the network (e.g. IP addresses, >> routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in >> the network)." >> >> This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community >> networks with much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with >> IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible. >> >> Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how >> control over the routing of the network has anything with the >> existence of the shared platform? In wlan slovenija network we also >> use a web shared platform, but that platform does not control the >> network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even >> without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about >> use of IP space, and learning how to configure their nodes. >> >> So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core >> network's resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries, >> etc.) are managed. >> >> "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the >> system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new >> segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall >> characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity >> to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to >> the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the >> previous and the new extent of the network." >> >> Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with >> "autonomous system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) >> >> So what exactly is the property which differentiates community >> networks? Maybe there is none. Maybe community networks are simply >> trying to (re)build the Internet, but this time having infrastructure >> owned by participants, which are not just consumers, but are >> participating. >> >> I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and >> that people own the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This >> should be more clearly explained. So it is not so much about >> technology in community networks, but about who owns and controls >> equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates the network >> growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers, >> participants, people gets blurred. >> >> "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she >> has contributed. >> >> Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for >> backbone nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track >> ownership of equipment, because they do not care about ownership if it >> is operating according to common principles. And if it is not, it >> should not be in the network no matter who owns the equipment. >> >> Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party >> stakeholders >> >> "VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an >> incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for >> sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who >> in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role." >> >> I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section >> really do that. In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/ >> movement is listed, but no shares or money or any incentive structure >> is in place there for people to share their extra Internet >> connectivity. >> >> So I would change this paragraph to: >> >> "VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, >> thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users >> get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by >> the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. But >> VNOs can also operate on gift-economy principles, where participants >> contribute to the commons by sharing their resources knowing that this >> benefits all." >> >> Section 6.2.1, Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless links >> >> "Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who >> design, deploy and manage wireless networks." >> >> Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of >> scale and mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is >> so popular in alternative networks. You can get a device for $10. And >> you can get this because everyone is producing this hardware, and the >> hardware is not just made for the alternative networks. In contrast, >> traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for them. Even >> if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number >> of WiFi routers produced for the global market. >> >> Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that >> needed? Why properties and descriptions of those standards should be >> in this draft? They belong to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In >> this draft we can just reference those standards. Like what of all >> this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general text >> which is true for any use: >> >> "802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for >> long range rural communications in TV white space frequencies and >> first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16 >> (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio >> ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8 >> MHz channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the >> default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 100 km is possible with special >> scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 is specifically customized >> for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined for more >> distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots >> destined for nearby CPEs. >> >> Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS) >> and a connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation >> spectrum database. Once the base station receives the allowed TV >> channels, it communicates a preferred operating white space TV channel >> with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a coexistence >> mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations aware >> of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same >> network." >> >> Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols >> >> "A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State >> Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]." >> >> Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/, >> which is far from the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in >> practice, ETX metric is used, which is not even mentioned in RFC3626. >> >> Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many >> networks, and it is even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you >> want to include a routing protocol for alternative networks with IETF >> standard, you should include this one for sure. >> >> Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources >> >> It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be >> some special prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs. >> But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes >> will be much further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just >> this distance already influences that the users of open network are >> prioritized less (they have higher packet loss, lower bitrate, which >> is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate). >> >> In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself >> on different frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh >> networks ran everything (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs >> on the same channel, but with 5 GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band >> devices this is often separated now. >> >> Section 7.3., services provided >> >> What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the >> Internet and networks in general? This looks pretty useless section >> which would not inform anyone reading this draft of anything about >> alternative networks. >> >> If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized >> services developed just for community/alternative networks: >> >> - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN >> - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org >> - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ >> - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms >> - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries >> - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices >> - Community radio/TV stations >> >> What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet >> access. For example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless >> communities which made networks in villages just to be able to play >> games. >> >> Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies >> >> "Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in >> many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations." >> >> That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles >> which are important in many other alternative networks. So the >> question how informative this sentence is, because for some maybe this >> is true, for some it is not, and some probably are build just around >> this. Others probably address this with innovative solutions like >> internal file servers. >> >> At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs >> (https://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To >> me is unclear. >> >> Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft: >> >> https://rhizomatica.org/ >> http://www.servalproject.org/ >> http://villagetelco.org/ >> >> >> Mitar >> >> -- >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gaia mailing list >> gaia@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >> > > > > -- > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a11402c48c2649805304022e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Regarding the questionnaire -=C2=A0

Bar= t and Leandro - did some work on this before cited in the draft:
Avont= s, J., Braem, B., and C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire based Examination o= f Community Networks", Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing, Netw= orking and Communications (WiMob), 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference o= n (pp. 8-15) , 2013.

So would you be able to give us som= e examples of how you forsee what we should have asked?
Regards

On 11 A= pril 2016 at 22:04, Arjuna Sathiaseelan <arjuna.sathiaseela= n@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
Hello Mitar -

So the first point I am tryin= g to understand is when you said CNs are not represented properly and we ar= e biased from our understanding/working with a CN like Guifi - how does a C= N like Guifi differ from the points you are raising:
=

=C2=A0"free shari= ng of Internet connectivity, altruism
= - various forms of activism (network neutr= ality guarantees,
anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing= that
alternative is possible)
- building a new type of commons
- not being just a consum= er, but active participant, wanting to have a
say in operations
- provide local serv= ices to local people, tighten/reconnect the
community (eg.=C2=A0http://tidepools.co/)
- prov= ide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other
extreme situation= s
- w= anting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others,empowering ot= hers to take their Internet connectivity into their own
hands"

Isnt a CN like Guifi doing exactly this?=C2=A0=

Are you saying that a specific section is no= t written correctly or are you saying the whole document does not illustrat= e the points you have raised. My confusion comes from this.

regards

=
On 10 April 2016 at 19:53, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.c= om> wrote:
Hi!

I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan
slovenija (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some
feedback on the draft. I am glad people are working on it. My list of
comments is in no particular order, mostly in order of reading. I am
sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the draft.

Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From
our network and from my experience talking to other community
networks, I would claim that many share also much more altruistic
motivations. For example, our whole network is build around principle
that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at home
(FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us
will share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course
there are other motivations why people participate, and everyone has a
different mix of those motivations, but I definitely think that the
list should be extended to include:

- free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism
- various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees,
anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that
alternative is possible)
- building a new type of commons
- not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a
say in operations
- provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the
community (eg. http://tidepools.co/)
- provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other
extreme situations
- wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others,
empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own
hands

An example of another network describing itself with much more of what
I am writing than what is currently on the list:
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh

All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I
remembered without much thinking) for many community networks. I do
not think the list in section 4.2 can ever be comprehensive, but I was
really taken aback from its economy-centric bias at the moment. Most
community networks do not operate on that level. It is of course
present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are
doing it.

Section 4.4, technologies employed:

"Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some=
villages."

Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages mentioned? Optical systems can also be used elsewhere.

Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no
fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially
in high-density urban environments because of no interference.

Section 4.5, typical scenarios:

I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any
network I know of outgrow and changed through time inside all these
categories. Community networks maybe start somewhere (like urban or
rural area), but then they grow and spread over the whole country,
then start connecting with other countries.

Section 5, classification of alternative networks:

Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited
perspective. I would claim that most alternative networks go beyond
just incentives, but exist because of various beliefs: about how
networks should operate, who should have control over them, the
importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc.

Section 5.1, community networks:

As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list
and I think you should include at least ones I listed above. But
probably you should do a survey and ask community networks what are
their goals and motivations, instead of trying to guess them. (If you
have done such a survey, I would love to see data.)

Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default.<= br>
Typical scenarios: all

Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be
small, city only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are
focused on one region, some are distributed around larger region,
connected with VPN together.

"There is a shared platform (e.g.=C2=A0 a web site) where a minimum coordination is performed.=C2=A0 This way, community members with the right=
permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control
over the overall operation of the network (e.g.=C2=A0 IP addresses,
routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in
the network)."

This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community
networks with much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with
IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible.

Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see = how
control over the routing of the network has anything with the
existence of the shared platform? In wlan slovenija network we also
use a web shared platform, but that platform does not control the
network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even
without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about
use of IP space, and learning how to configure their nodes.

So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core
network's resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries,
etc.) are managed.

"A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the
system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new
segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall
characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity
to further extend the network.=C2=A0 Once these link segments are joined to=
the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the
previous and the new extent of the network."

Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment"= with
"autonomous system" and "community network" with "= Internet". :-)

So what exactly is the property which differentiates community
networks? Maybe there is none. Maybe community networks are simply
trying to (re)build the Internet, but this time having infrastructure
owned by participants, which are not just consumers, but are
participating.

I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and
that people own the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This
should be more clearly explained. So it is not so much about
technology in community networks, but about who owns and controls
equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates the network
growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers,
participants, people gets blurred.

"In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has contributed.

Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for
backbone nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track
ownership of equipment, because they do not care about ownership if it
is operating according to common principles. And if it is not, it
should not be in the network no matter who owns the equipment.

Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
stakeholders

"VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an
incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for
sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who
in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role."

I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section
really do that. In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/
movement is listed, but no shares or money or any incentive structure
is in place there for people to share their extra Internet
connectivity.

So I would change this paragraph to:

"VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users
get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by
the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. But
VNOs can also operate on gift-economy principles, where participants
contribute to the commons by sharing their resources knowing that this
benefits all."

Section 6.2.1,=C2=A0 Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless link= s

"Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who=
design, deploy and manage wireless networks."

Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of
scale and mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is
so popular in alternative networks. You can get a device for $10. And
you can get this because everyone is producing this hardware, and the
hardware is not just made for the alternative networks. In contrast,
traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for them. Even
if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number
of WiFi routers produced for the global market.

Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that
needed? Why properties and descriptions of those standards should be
in this draft? They belong to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In
this draft we can just reference those standards. Like what of all
this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general text
which is true for any use:

"802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for long range rural communications in TV white space frequencies and
first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16
(WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio
ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8
MHz channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the
default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 100 km is possible with special
scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 is specifically customized
for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined for more
distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots
destined for nearby CPEs.

Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS)
and a connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation
spectrum database. Once the base station receives the allowed TV
channels, it communicates a preferred operating white space TV channel
with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a coexistence
mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations aware
of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same
network."

Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols

"A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]."

Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/,
which is far from the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in
practice, ETX metric is used, which is not even mentioned in RFC3626.

Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many
networks, and it is even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you
want to include a routing protocol for alternative networks with IETF
standard, you should include this one for sure.

Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources

It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be
some special prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs.
But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes
will be much further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just
this distance already influences that the users of open network are
prioritized less (they have higher packet loss, lower bitrate, which
is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate).

In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself
on different frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh
networks ran everything (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs
on the same channel, but with 5 GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band
devices this is often separated now.

Section 7.3., services provided

What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the
Internet and networks in general? This looks pretty useless section
which would not inform anyone reading this draft of anything about
alternative networks.

If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized
services developed just for community/alternative networks:

- Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org
- Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/
- Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms
- VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries
- Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices - Community radio/TV stations

What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet
access. For example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless
communities which made networks in villages just to be able to play
games.

Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies

"Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in<= br> many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations."

That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles
which are important in many other alternative networks. So the
question how informative this sentence is, because for some maybe this
is true, for some it is not, and some probably are build just around
this. Others probably address this with innovative solutions like
internal file servers.

At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs
(h= ttps://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To
me is unclear.

Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft:
h= ttps://rhizomatica.org/
http://www.servalproject.org/
h= ttp://villagetelco.org/


Mitar

--
ht= tp://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



--



--
--001a11402c48c2649805304022e2-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 20:07:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C47512DB36 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:07:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNSwExY01E3A for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C101012DDC4 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x229.google.com with SMTP id gy3so77690095igb.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:07:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=lTvHGb40d51oRDcapxR4HLuMjyuPntbN/suPsa3q9X0=; b=GRyOVrjdvPMuhjZomS/IZosjjI+uzg6Jf5brEDh0zYs8Kd7+pzr5cOHDhDVRzdPFH5 uo0rjmmwpHzAdNtLIfEekqPswQ1OCAf9/K88KaF0tzS/shxBkr5T258NlzzqSTxfpJDg lnMkS3hp8860HJ/hy6kaWE9BNn8ib8Q85QWqXY5Qr298+qLBSWQ2DMi40BeotpQVANi9 scSVcYjnz2Cad5mIOFZ+swwmoECqDQd7Ntd17+l5030OmirrTHXTvNJKiAeOrY+oOdWB M3UYYO+EZwwDc0mvMyAg3C0WQg70TVLY4lFXcd+obobkXd6EfMtcykOc38rnH5mJAJ4H hJ/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=lTvHGb40d51oRDcapxR4HLuMjyuPntbN/suPsa3q9X0=; b=Lv0sANNyLGIvdgCiv0DI3Re4336B2Tek4MMytUxb+ju8Bv6u/QrkbyVHoUbtVFKtN9 qPh+VbZkWIZeF10LbTj6YztCu/bAN532pgfDlikJ6JNYLOlS8Vv9U9H7mUZOlmsluabh p0Px+iYMcbB2+c68xMLFNUe9gPaa1pX3WUEnpws/Hd5oBC6jER+PpD+/HzW9vlh6o+16 lQ6+x7E4YazK13iT1wmnl+GBJCwtl0UqP8zRgBGQ068ZmslEKXA8w+jAw1LAVZhkNEnb 5w76ClLcAr2zYiJx6Jp284+WnJQU7Wp9SzGDLv43c4Zt/ywrF6yzHl2QP/nxVCZtuALV qaKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUSSM5lfxiH0dt3urjYcuaByjJKrWw6cJ2FJW4p6IZ25N+MJWtE42ApbhrGaB1NWU693qAJmXD6sKjQLQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.108.49 with SMTP id hh17mr1421207igb.31.1460430419835; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:06:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:06:59 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 03:07:04 -0000 Hi! On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > Isnt a CN like Guifi doing exactly this? Sorry if I was unclear. I was not saying that guifi.net does not have those properties, they do (and this is one more argument why they should be included) and they are simply amazing and highly inspirational, but that from small hints here and there, like examples used, it is noticeable that things are coming from their particular case. Which is somewhat understandable, because they are doing amazing stuff, but it might be one of the reasons for some bias. Because if one thing is true about community networks is that they are as diverse as possible. Even one network itself is often without any homogeneous form or direction. But once you have this size of the network, it is maybe easy to start thinking only about numbers: how many users they have, what is the reach, how much they then pay for their Internet, and so on. guifi.net is definitely an interesting example because of their size they created their own economy inside the network, people working full time on growing the network, companies moving in to use them as backbone, and so on. All this is beautiful and it is a story to tell, but it is only one side of a coin. If you do not look for the other side of the coin, you might miss it. And when you look at a network like guifi.net is it easy to get amazed by the first side of the coin already, to not even ask "but is there something more to those community networks". > Are you saying that a specific section is not written correctly or are you > saying the whole document does not illustrate the points you have raised. My > confusion comes from this. I commented point to point. So some parts of the document seem to me to be missing important additional information are one sided, some parts of documents seem to me unnecessary for this particular document, and some are really off, like the routing section one, that one needs quite a bit of improvement (especially because it is the easiest to validate, as it is highly technical). In most cases I was trying to propose concrete corrections/improvements to address the issues raised. I think the document is a great draft. I think it is moving in the right direction, but sadly, I do not see it finished. Too many aspects are still missing. Mitar > On 10 April 2016 at 19:53, Mitar wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan >> slovenija (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some >> feedback on the draft. I am glad people are working on it. My list of >> comments is in no particular order, mostly in order of reading. I am >> sorry if this will be long, but there are many issues with the draft. >> >> Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From >> our network and from my experience talking to other community >> networks, I would claim that many share also much more altruistic >> motivations. For example, our whole network is build around principle >> that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at home >> (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us >> will share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course >> there are other motivations why people participate, and everyone has a >> different mix of those motivations, but I definitely think that the >> list should be extended to include: >> >> - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism >> - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, >> anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, showing that >> alternative is possible) >> - building a new type of commons >> - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a >> say in operations >> - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the >> community (eg. http://tidepools.co/) >> - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other >> extreme situations >> - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, >> empowering others to take their Internet connectivity into their own >> hands >> >> An example of another network describing itself with much more of what >> I am writing than what is currently on the list: >> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh >> >> All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I >> remembered without much thinking) for many community networks. I do >> not think the list in section 4.2 can ever be comprehensive, but I was >> really taken aback from its economy-centric bias at the moment. Most >> community networks do not operate on that level. It is of course >> present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are >> doing it. >> >> Section 4.4, technologies employed: >> >> "Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some >> villages." >> >> Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages >> mentioned? Optical systems can also be used elsewhere. >> >> Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no >> fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially >> in high-density urban environments because of no interference. >> >> Section 4.5, typical scenarios: >> >> I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any >> network I know of outgrow and changed through time inside all these >> categories. Community networks maybe start somewhere (like urban or >> rural area), but then they grow and spread over the whole country, >> then start connecting with other countries. >> >> Section 5, classification of alternative networks: >> >> Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited >> perspective. I would claim that most alternative networks go beyond >> just incentives, but exist because of various beliefs: about how >> networks should operate, who should have control over them, the >> importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc. >> >> Section 5.1, community networks: >> >> As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list >> and I think you should include at least ones I listed above. But >> probably you should do a survey and ask community networks what are >> their goals and motivations, instead of trying to guess them. (If you >> have done such a survey, I would love to see data.) >> >> Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default. >> >> Typical scenarios: all >> >> Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be >> small, city only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are >> focused on one region, some are distributed around larger region, >> connected with VPN together. >> >> "There is a shared platform (e.g. a web site) where a minimum >> coordination is performed. This way, community members with the right >> permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control >> over the overall operation of the network (e.g. IP addresses, >> routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in >> the network)." >> >> This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community >> networks with much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with >> IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible. >> >> Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how >> control over the routing of the network has anything with the >> existence of the shared platform? In wlan slovenija network we also >> use a web shared platform, but that platform does not control the >> network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even >> without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about >> use of IP space, and learning how to configure their nodes. >> >> So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core >> network's resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries, >> etc.) are managed. >> >> "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the >> system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new >> segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall >> characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity >> to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to >> the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the >> previous and the new extent of the network." >> >> Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with >> "autonomous system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) >> >> So what exactly is the property which differentiates community >> networks? Maybe there is none. Maybe community networks are simply >> trying to (re)build the Internet, but this time having infrastructure >> owned by participants, which are not just consumers, but are >> participating. >> >> I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and >> that people own the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This >> should be more clearly explained. So it is not so much about >> technology in community networks, but about who owns and controls >> equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates the network >> growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers, >> participants, people gets blurred. >> >> "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she >> has contributed. >> >> Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for >> backbone nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track >> ownership of equipment, because they do not care about ownership if it >> is operating according to common principles. And if it is not, it >> should not be in the network no matter who owns the equipment. >> >> Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party >> stakeholders >> >> "VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an >> incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for >> sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who >> in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role." >> >> I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section >> really do that. In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/ >> movement is listed, but no shares or money or any incentive structure >> is in place there for people to share their extra Internet >> connectivity. >> >> So I would change this paragraph to: >> >> "VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, >> thus creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users >> get money for sharing their network, the network operators are paid by >> the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. But >> VNOs can also operate on gift-economy principles, where participants >> contribute to the commons by sharing their resources knowing that this >> benefits all." >> >> Section 6.2.1, Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless links >> >> "Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who >> design, deploy and manage wireless networks." >> >> Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of >> scale and mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is >> so popular in alternative networks. You can get a device for $10. And >> you can get this because everyone is producing this hardware, and the >> hardware is not just made for the alternative networks. In contrast, >> traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for them. Even >> if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number >> of WiFi routers produced for the global market. >> >> Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that >> needed? Why properties and descriptions of those standards should be >> in this draft? They belong to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In >> this draft we can just reference those standards. Like what of all >> this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general text >> which is true for any use: >> >> "802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for >> long range rural communications in TV white space frequencies and >> first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16 >> (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio >> ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8 >> MHz channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the >> default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 100 km is possible with special >> scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 is specifically customized >> for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined for more >> distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots >> destined for nearby CPEs. >> >> Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS) >> and a connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation >> spectrum database. Once the base station receives the allowed TV >> channels, it communicates a preferred operating white space TV channel >> with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a coexistence >> mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations aware >> of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same >> network." >> >> Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols >> >> "A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State >> Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]." >> >> Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/, >> which is far from the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in >> practice, ETX metric is used, which is not even mentioned in RFC3626. >> >> Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many >> networks, and it is even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you >> want to include a routing protocol for alternative networks with IETF >> standard, you should include this one for sure. >> >> Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources >> >> It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be >> some special prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs. >> But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes >> will be much further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just >> this distance already influences that the users of open network are >> prioritized less (they have higher packet loss, lower bitrate, which >> is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate). >> >> In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself >> on different frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh >> networks ran everything (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs >> on the same channel, but with 5 GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band >> devices this is often separated now. >> >> Section 7.3., services provided >> >> What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the >> Internet and networks in general? This looks pretty useless section >> which would not inform anyone reading this draft of anything about >> alternative networks. >> >> If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized >> services developed just for community/alternative networks: >> >> - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN >> - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org >> - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ >> - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms >> - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries >> - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices >> - Community radio/TV stations >> >> What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet >> access. For example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless >> communities which made networks in villages just to be able to play >> games. >> >> Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies >> >> "Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in >> many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations." >> >> That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles >> which are important in many other alternative networks. So the >> question how informative this sentence is, because for some maybe this >> is true, for some it is not, and some probably are build just around >> this. Others probably address this with innovative solutions like >> internal file servers. >> >> At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs >> (https://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To >> me is unclear. >> >> Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft: >> >> https://rhizomatica.org/ >> http://www.servalproject.org/ >> http://villagetelco.org/ >> >> >> Mitar >> >> -- >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gaia mailing list >> gaia@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > > > -- > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Mon Apr 11 20:15:14 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7FC12E02C for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:15:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qo4vEd_9HTjt for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 049FA12DAD2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x230.google.com with SMTP id kb1so97899424igb.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:15:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=NVjhikS5xot6aC8AkNY/ETkXYQT2nEHctfYbU3M2Y5w=; b=mcVWUxFByzPI/tpJBljR6gpyn3ixMoZN+MvFytFHwNOhT5SPHKNPVzZPRPd7ef06Vv Er1g8xigk1T+INFM7gFX9Guhev4oGn6XltqMYeiV3iWahLm+u5zFmCeOTG4MSwi69wFq T8BsXdSR/a9uFwTLwJ+By7BvSaI7SnJrZ8YRyddcDirSJ93RYD9rI25YCNRKUYBg/f4y 7FzIGjs6CU6OkqKQ1V6P6AI5WC8VE7UbxKuv9fh1A5vubxGE0Y8MlVLO3GQ+EY8vdm+B 2S5GZ1Z1hcVdoVpVjzns2rnuAhHlkt/f2ukHIG8ZA7zL24HtuBz9UF45Krpd03iMxerp LSVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=NVjhikS5xot6aC8AkNY/ETkXYQT2nEHctfYbU3M2Y5w=; b=Ulhqgkd5kDPd2cvkkdhTaOvHCNqmvf9KDjfNCG1koC96BDGihajk88t4BK5B5KpGw9 hVPGgmQ2yZwEtISF8njICoE86jP6gW52/eDBTR24KaM9Z8vQvsARdib6VgIJ6ggK3NEx GfLotZ+QO+pRHoKwjL1KD+MdesK076tMLvPwy4wDWWKK3kBatahLwPHNjijuFDKcRP5i B+4eS03x+tMMrjJTbB9ZUHRmlSPkyB93mfnpREtkeVn+0pKOyWlrShdXG4oi0qPNdzsZ TnqD9h7bXXBwnYoPneADeiOs55QPiS00u0ANk4DGuGOOnPhq6dXMP+7yDPAu/Wi6raqv Dr5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVpUQcSRDNlmpQwcSHt+TL2LYx1yvtN2Qbo8iQbhFy0Pgw3AaVswl+Ei04lAyJhLsFMbC7glvgKMk832A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.92.41 with SMTP id cj9mr1442276igb.38.1460430910300; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:15:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:15:09 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 03:15:13 -0000 Hi! On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > Bart and Leandro - did some work on this before cited in the draft: > Avonts, J., Braem, B., and C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire based Examination of > Community Networks", Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking > and Communications (WiMob), 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on (pp. > 8-15) , 2013. Cool. I remember it and we participated in that survey. > So would you be able to give us some examples of how you forsee what we > should have asked? The one you are trying to answer with the document under section "Goals and motivation". For example: What are your goals and motivation for participating in the network? Or: Why are you participating in the network? Or: Why do you think the network exists? What makes participants participate in the network? The questionnaire did not include any such question but was mostly concerned only about structural, technical, and financial properties of community networks. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Mon Apr 11 20:30:52 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F13D12E0EF for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RajeT1a0U_pu for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.nsrc.org (mail.nsrc.org [128.223.157.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E7AE12D93E for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.nsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD42700D46; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.nsrc.org ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail.nsrc.org [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id JVGZ3lvOWzUq; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.nsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2292700D65; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.nsrc.org Received: from mail.nsrc.org ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail.nsrc.org [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id IAzphEs5PCUD; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.nsrc.org (shell.nsrc.org [IPv6:2607:8400:2880:4::80df:9d34]) by mail.nsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B08A0700D46; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:30:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steven G. Huter" To: Stephen Farrell In-Reply-To: <570C41E0.5050701@cs.tcd.ie> Message-ID: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> <570C41E0.5050701@cs.tcd.ie> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Mitar , Arjuna Sathiaseelan , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 03:30:51 -0000 > While I do think this draft could be published as an RFC now > with no harm accruing, my personal prediction is that all > involved will end up happier in the longer term if we do > try to discuss recent comments, which are not insubstantial > (but which are also not showstoppers). I reckon that's true > even if it's also for sure annoying for those who've been > working on this text a while. I agree with you, Stephen. Steven Huter, NSRC https://nsrc.org/ From nobody Mon Apr 11 21:52:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7276B12E315 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:52:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9CDj-6xGFxY8 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AF1312DA67 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id j11so8731093lfb.1 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:52:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=5B0Zp5fAYZI4+Id8eLxiq7czvHDcu2KPkNBY//d7lWw=; b=rIJfU/XAVCmpdOS1Fb4/NkS0rocFUHF/EqB9pLBVQYj7OzA3hsuPs5XmYXVSK8HLQs Rar6XOlTux+X86fW6Ir6yfB3gMDuPH58TN33uCNCjJLIKwpeVIU0rJ0v0nqhnQ17CfqS ZJWBI1vjfPlH7cSN/3h+xBixvtx7FlUlQhkT2NQCgnbpfBkwyydWuBjahGnp2zpPXswD NX8BR4B/PhZSPvmQWQXqZSZajs8cIPgJQ2YIlHKWw/5J/w1jrPKnI3bFvdhJqFfGhkg5 Ci97dWWxYmkfWcH4Mf6VN2LQMNugnGACdKQhnrQCXEcuwRWLzw3BCPCHscZhenHYC7Ar FWHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=5B0Zp5fAYZI4+Id8eLxiq7czvHDcu2KPkNBY//d7lWw=; b=G6dkH27Sff9ZRyVXhK9riSALXEKFrgP4mDpQPoClwDmqI9IhdW4VhsP7uwg494+H/I x+mopl7O8QR2UqlAYMlYAlAJVYBrAVMNj47C1A1sS7+BghYtgc0ROniGay/XLcw/gbjy FeQoDTqzsJYSMhA5aCifvYplMcjLnJFBwjByvH3r2YKwu5PKC1ySnm/c87+iDs8Vufus 2V/5W7YowGSLgPaI1J7TPaYOqTNLpviBD4/ktjKg6BMpeqF62J7OZwrD4YPWeHOoti61 WttaUmaxFdZkwWArygLKxCeJTjc8bRoJvMUrly3fFTnUeo860rximb/piF/mgnWPg1y7 iadg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWeljsiFKeWEEotqRXTFmDAWhUP7nuXd/Ltg0w4QoQwp28moR0dDu7auzi2GzX44WHwJGwDZoHg+jGagQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.21.28 with SMTP id l28mr398024lfi.165.1460436718634; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:51:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:51:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Zjmz3s1menC6FDaIEpJM3p4QL_o Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e5b92d4cdbf0530426ba2 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:52:04 -0000 --001a113e5b92d4cdbf0530426ba2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello Mitar - I just managed to go through your emails in full :). Ok - I think I got the confusion - and I think I should clear it (probably Jose can add or correct me since he is the actual driver behind this draft) - the draft is about alternative networks to traditional network operator based -- so community networks was one of them - the draft was not about community networks per se in its entirety. So we just give an overview of the different approaches (e.g. WISPs are one of them, CNs is another, the crowdshared approach like PAWS/Freifunk or what you are doing in slovenia is the other) -- so this draft gives a summary of the different approaches and the tech, economics, social, regulatory around these different approaches. Probably I am wondering whether this is where the confusion likes since you see us talking about economics? The goal of the draft was discussed as I said two years ago -- so the focus was not just on community networks. But I agree and always welcome tech related suggestions - ofcourse they need to be improvised - we should do that. Regards On 11 April 2016 at 21:12, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > wrote: > > we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback... > > That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists should > just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them? > > You are working on describing community networks, then it would be > useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and get > their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I remember > seeing messages around: > > http://p2pvalue.eu/ > > I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on organic > dissemination of information through various means. > > In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one > e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it now. I > responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with some > effort it could happen also in previously. > > > I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation? > > I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many > issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that > community networks are mostly presented through the economic > perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This is > like saying that people participate in free software projects because > software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of other > reasons as well. > > Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a survey > and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, why > they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and read > them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences > approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a > document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite > other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which > analyze motivations behind people doing community networks? > > What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that your > data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people > participate. But I know from my long participation in these networks, > that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and > especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet > community get understanding of this community networks (and other > alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice because > after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they just want > cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the heart of > the community. > > Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Internet > for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know > that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered > members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer > comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix the > antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you will > do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe, but > probably not. > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a113e5b92d4cdbf0530426ba2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Mitar - I just managed to go through your emails in = full :).

Ok - I think I got the confusion - and I think = I should clear it (probably Jose can add or correct me since he is the actu= al driver behind this draft) -

the draft is about = alternative networks to traditional network operator based --
so community networks was one of them - the draft was not about= community networks per se in its entirety.=C2=A0

= So we just give an overview of the different approaches (e.g. WISPs are one= of them, CNs is another, the crowdshared approach like PAWS/Freifunk or wh= at you are doing in slovenia is the other) --

so t= his draft gives a summary of the different approaches and the tech, economi= cs, social, regulatory around these different approaches.

Probably I am wondering whether this is where the confusion likes s= ince you see us talking about economics?

The goal = of the draft was discussed as I said two years ago -- so the focus was not = just on community networks.=C2=A0

But I agree and = always welcome tech related suggestions - ofcourse they need to be improvis= ed - we should do that.=C2=A0

Regards
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On 11 April 2016 a= t 21:12, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan= @cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback...
That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists shoul= d
just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them?

You are working on describing community networks, then it would be
useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and get
their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I remember
seeing messages around:

http:/= /p2pvalue.eu/

I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on organic
dissemination of information through various means.

In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one
e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it now. I
responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with some
effort it could happen also in previously.

> I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation?=

I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many
issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that
community networks are mostly presented through the economic
perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This is
like saying that people participate in free software projects because
software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of other
reasons as well.

Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a survey
and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, why
they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and read
them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences
approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a
document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite
other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which
analyze motivations behind people doing community networks?

What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that your
data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people
participate. But I know from my long participation in these networks,
that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and
especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet
community get understanding of this community networks (and other
alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice because
after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they just want<= br> cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the heart of=
the community.

Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Internet
for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know
that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered
members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer
comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix the
antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you will
do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe, but
probably not.



--
=
--001a113e5b92d4cdbf0530426ba2-- From nobody Mon Apr 11 22:04:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6182112E2F1 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:04:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TRJbIFv6IO68 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x22f.google.com (mail-ig0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27C8712E21E for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id kb1so99260955igb.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:04:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Nbhc5yD2w1COhRMfKlnHHyp+pCcfLHVEDW8IwMJpw48=; b=roBVElYQoLlGL7FIEMimtO6L1nkmavPpPaRyDzQVkZwFpoT55qUcuxLWeNIGPQYwA0 xqYg/zkl+tbMo+gQN6mxwYiwAwQ5Rtwdy+3avFGPL64zwjxpJVgF1DqzwPfkymDmvFli vv55A+wpUj9/rLBJkj5WKY0INVty6ChWPRgRBMRNTInZW/Prh0VubQMblp+r/C5Ad84t ofUiAavISZ2up9XUOPVwdKTsaZ71ZYn/xhG0I04nKPAVxyJT5QhuuOPtYXjhwQbPB8m5 vfCM/k+irc5VLi2DrzY24WxGxsLvbUcilIY3gIr/WC/OOd0WvvsTGqDuXDarie2RDmuZ 3Q5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Nbhc5yD2w1COhRMfKlnHHyp+pCcfLHVEDW8IwMJpw48=; b=AiDM8V96rcXtaskPQBN/AyTee9A/E6r1IgZlTGgAHbYlKCwnQDK5siaQOg2zH+/SBu U5+J5g20m8bs0svkYcL130ey/b/5pQewxuh7bLnHprUMT+AtF+uOx5aVamgZQmH5DzXJ dq8ZI2v7cDNBamjr2cq67oXELIy3qck/uxTrTcQciWFhDoGx+iQpa2iAIH34YWRxcNKG 8VZdYNpghcuf4bYKistnYF6qUHgkKwTaNJmgQaSS7Ja9GLt072mEHkjPVBOTYFU7eyZn UVf796IKJMvjz65mbZWVsULZQECbwFKCmikRDmRUYXSvEyhBBEpiY27WS39ek+wWjVEf CuQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWUdQZxfmxzSq942Z6Dm8h6sTo4UOC+2VTlqaXFTHy7eAup68W/Fb/7sBQEXn7q0HORA03gpxWpbYbiKA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.108.49 with SMTP id hh17mr1787810igb.31.1460437491441; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:04:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:04:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:04:56 -0000 Hi! I understand the scope. And my comments mostly relate to the community networks aspect of this document. As you are providing overview of community networks as part of alternative networks, I provided some feedback on that as I am familiar with those, more than other forms of alternative networks. As such, I find description of community networks as found in this document imprecise and incomplete. It is interesting that you are counting Freifunk and wlan slovenija to crowdshared approach? Why is that? At least for wlan slovenija I can say that we are first a community network, but it is true that we are probably a bit different one to guifi.net because we started from urban areas and a position of abundance. But this is just one of those many factors of diversity in community networks. In any case, however you want to structure or use terminology, none of your types of alternative networks corresponds to goals and motivation found in networks I know. So maybe you are then not describing all types of alternative networks. Or you have to extend existing terms with also other types of goals and motivations. I would propose, that first it would be useful to extend the goals and motivations section itself. And then go through all existing types of alternative networks mentioned in the document and try to see how they align with those new goals and motivations. Mitar On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote: > Hello Mitar - I just managed to go through your emails in full :). > > Ok - I think I got the confusion - and I think I should clear it (probably > Jose can add or correct me since he is the actual driver behind this draft) > - > > the draft is about alternative networks to traditional network operator > based -- > > so community networks was one of them - the draft was not about community > networks per se in its entirety. > > So we just give an overview of the different approaches (e.g. WISPs are one > of them, CNs is another, the crowdshared approach like PAWS/Freifunk or what > you are doing in slovenia is the other) -- > > so this draft gives a summary of the different approaches and the tech, > economics, social, regulatory around these different approaches. > > Probably I am wondering whether this is where the confusion likes since you > see us talking about economics? > > The goal of the draft was discussed as I said two years ago -- so the focus > was not just on community networks. > > But I agree and always welcome tech related suggestions - ofcourse they need > to be improvised - we should do that. > > Regards > > On 11 April 2016 at 21:12, Mitar wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan >> wrote: >> > we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback... >> >> That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists should >> just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them? >> >> You are working on describing community networks, then it would be >> useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and get >> their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I remember >> seeing messages around: >> >> http://p2pvalue.eu/ >> >> I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on organic >> dissemination of information through various means. >> >> In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one >> e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it now. I >> responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with some >> effort it could happen also in previously. >> >> > I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation? >> >> I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many >> issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that >> community networks are mostly presented through the economic >> perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This is >> like saying that people participate in free software projects because >> software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of other >> reasons as well. >> >> Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a survey >> and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, why >> they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and read >> them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences >> approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a >> document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite >> other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which >> analyze motivations behind people doing community networks? >> >> What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that your >> data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people >> participate. But I know from my long participation in these networks, >> that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and >> especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet >> community get understanding of this community networks (and other >> alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice because >> after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they just want >> cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the heart of >> the community. >> >> Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Internet >> for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know >> that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered >> members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer >> comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix the >> antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you will >> do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe, but >> probably not. >> >> >> Mitar >> >> -- >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > > > > -- > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Mon Apr 11 22:26:49 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DEC12E40E for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:26:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQRrD5ty2k45 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx141.netapp.com (mx141.netapp.com [216.240.21.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C0612E40D for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:26:45 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,472,1455004800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="111967579" Received: from hioexcmbx08-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.41]) by mx141-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2016 22:21:45 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx08-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:21:41 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::c07c:8fcd:f7e4:f32b%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1156.000; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:21:41 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Jose Saldana Thread-Topic: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments Thread-Index: AQHRk4Q2CcuNNvkhoUmbAqiDjQ6OQZ+FUD4AgAD0eIA= Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:21:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> In-Reply-To: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.120.60.35] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DCFEF2CF-F50E-49CB-A012-CC4EDA06E720"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Mitar Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:26:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DCFEF2CF-F50E-49CB-A012-CC4EDA06E720 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On 2016-04-11, at 16:46, Jose Saldana wrote: > The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the = first > version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion, = the > draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG = review. you of course mean research group last call :-) > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially = modifying it. Well, you can modify it, but it would imply re-running the last call and = IRSG Review. It is a judgment call for the RG chairs whether they = believe that a major revision would result in a document that is so much = better that it is worth incurring the extra delay until publication. Lars --Apple-Mail=_DCFEF2CF-F50E-49CB-A012-CC4EDA06E720 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXDIXoAAoJEFS1wwm/cMFXrUsQAIm4LPg8SctbaJTTBl2vJs68 ea76m71so0yGdY81Y0buzfLHmoH/72avFKD/rKY4s+RYji6eeA+O2/bAb9Jtm1Zn +6aBMYAiqrAOUcffwVFfIzGpN+c+F24XJXcp+deWYtl9tMhmCZNJc4b7Ow9yc7Ns RdLnVgLek22C1BFla4+kzZ9d8EnLbXXSp0tdD3rFZxXol4nO7waXFlvMr8MyiwlU dhOPhKCcJOyPpwUgnpg5NfX5gKyP3vHEorqXVbdu16yJvnvjEYOU9fj9vRVq5n+d M5o5cua7UHULXSb59B+/obm0hcSsaJBgKxOHRtpY6QBL5oLz+qn5hJlQXnAh2JH5 7SGpEWCKblyoOT/9nKMyXzXZ4iUae4hSYEMRJ0iKXYgoHZx+E5NR6IaozhrkcQPQ IoTGLuzko96iD8eqViHFy9rKVS7o+Pq42LthTnSI/mqXgcUCzMq9vfKaVsPn6ZCk Lv+Nv1A5sX8GHo/LcLb5JlP3Q2CSsPxd6LMp7r5Yizt0erRgsgF4L8cTs7sO/s3s PRb9/KUgnyAJl2wtC/HsepQGhYphfNmXy0dBJbt7E+oDAZb7DNi/s/UIubgnafLu obca4BTq8inGxUa1h1DMMWWoledB37X27EVgNdtszxdzIhdagma23CiAKMA5rZuV 7s9sD8/3iIqkgxCUyZQ2 =tV2N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DCFEF2CF-F50E-49CB-A012-CC4EDA06E720-- From nobody Tue Apr 12 00:11:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E58A12E611 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:11:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4kJvm76g_DIR for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40CEB12E305 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id j11so12277429lfb.1 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:11:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=31ZHU+fPCrTwdlef5koOPZgzC7GpBjkIopUlYXvjKuM=; b=mozMlf7Zw+4gjtqSb1wUq73UGXqH9wVzPCMsk8UTBrCtcBg3YyrJyisIIe8IdrLZNn NHXddKDwXBwfXzBBzSEDen+kYnrHR8TTp0Vx714WbxlDff2pgquxqmBuvbDqR2YZYoA0 xFTA8FfRgu5OChFnUQgoORVIHA+2Vnh9PZlhksjqX+WkcZX/dHGmfwVpE5qKQMhD3mp7 rCO7AXkoKOn+us2t0Pd4EzebU7Zzi7ATD401u8HqTtLGl/if+q3AVsA+9N7b0PXKRftZ iPcOAdbB8nl9tEkHHawKdD5upDAfWWpZCVxO+upaf74upjQ3VPz7Km4qMa9zXeGvfaG0 EDEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=31ZHU+fPCrTwdlef5koOPZgzC7GpBjkIopUlYXvjKuM=; b=OIo1k71AM4cx6lAsuHQFwWB+Q9otjSCICnW4WUHcA4SPfAbk1uID+y3VnlLw91L5u2 u0H67UWfezzhnu8ck7J2u6oiWSxUPhMgKj2j5WEgDn8jCtmGHSP7C97hqW82WCNw9aHE FHserKDh+/vMMm6p6t4G6JLE+j8NgFxHWpodx9QNuqx9rb7FQrVWXEtfwOagD4p6+OHV ARI5TZ9V3T6GXo7hkxoxCmT5yxb268Uvp8DvvpOlYbTtCI253g//1mZ8tMeYHeWztKxW C4DmvRVmJKTuKP4VUd6+CF8DGPfgIPbfK3Kxmjt5a4Iqk0y4oeC58VUER6ZhUATFQjRs OQmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXCGeunsnYK3ft2cSIwmNELf014Ro1vhRV7tYaT+Oo3+mHn6CO7iFk3N+dPOFQwMIoY51+nGjnpDRMlgQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.17.5 with SMTP id k5mr721742lbd.46.1460445087367; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: crowcroft@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.0.140 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:11:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:11:27 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Dr2IMq7JDolLWtPqCFvL81CrL04 Message-ID: From: Jon Crowcroft To: Mitar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3dc2ea58bfb0530445e9d Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Arjuna Sathiaseelan , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:11:33 -0000 --001a11c3dc2ea58bfb0530445e9d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think inclusivity is by definition called for in any gaia work. the points you made in your original long message are covered to some extent in the current doc, but having more data points from other countries/cultures is, in my view, extremely important just on your very first point, for example, about altruism - all too often, the "consensus" in a lot of tech/geek (dare i say neo-liberal) world is that you have to have monetary incentives (e.g. market will fix things is a mantra in the IETF) and yet the evidence from many studies is that most the world ticks over on unpaid labour (parenting, housework, caring etc) and things like common interest - so the more examples of this in community networks, the more we can dispel the myth that you have to build a for-profit system - the myth of the tragedy of the commons (oft-repeated in ignorance of how long the common grazing lands in mongolia persisted (literally, millenia)) is quite pervasive on the technical and deployment side, differences matter too, since diversity allows us to see how the design space has been (succesfully) explored and would allow new potential deployment efforts to choose a better fit for the given environment.... maybe for now, if you have this written up, the current draft could add a reference? On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > I understand the scope. And my comments mostly relate to the community > networks aspect of this document. As you are providing overview of > community networks as part of alternative networks, I provided some > feedback on that as I am familiar with those, more than other forms of > alternative networks. > > As such, I find description of community networks as found in this > document imprecise and incomplete. > > It is interesting that you are counting Freifunk and wlan slovenija to > crowdshared approach? Why is that? At least for wlan slovenija I can > say that we are first a community network, but it is true that we are > probably a bit different one to guifi.net because we started from > urban areas and a position of abundance. But this is just one of those > many factors of diversity in community networks. > > In any case, however you want to structure or use terminology, none of > your types of alternative networks corresponds to goals and motivation > found in networks I know. So maybe you are then not describing all > types of alternative networks. Or you have to extend existing terms > with also other types of goals and motivations. > > I would propose, that first it would be useful to extend the goals and > motivations section itself. And then go through all existing types of > alternative networks mentioned in the document and try to see how they > align with those new goals and motivations. > > > Mitar > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > wrote: > > Hello Mitar - I just managed to go through your emails in full :). > > > > Ok - I think I got the confusion - and I think I should clear it > (probably > > Jose can add or correct me since he is the actual driver behind this > draft) > > - > > > > the draft is about alternative networks to traditional network operator > > based -- > > > > so community networks was one of them - the draft was not about community > > networks per se in its entirety. > > > > So we just give an overview of the different approaches (e.g. WISPs are > one > > of them, CNs is another, the crowdshared approach like PAWS/Freifunk or > what > > you are doing in slovenia is the other) -- > > > > so this draft gives a summary of the different approaches and the tech, > > economics, social, regulatory around these different approaches. > > > > Probably I am wondering whether this is where the confusion likes since > you > > see us talking about economics? > > > > The goal of the draft was discussed as I said two years ago -- so the > focus > > was not just on community networks. > > > > But I agree and always welcome tech related suggestions - ofcourse they > need > > to be improvised - we should do that. > > > > Regards > > > > On 11 April 2016 at 21:12, Mitar wrote: > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan > >> wrote: > >> > we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback... > >> > >> That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists should > >> just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them? > >> > >> You are working on describing community networks, then it would be > >> useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and get > >> their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I remember > >> seeing messages around: > >> > >> http://p2pvalue.eu/ > >> > >> I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on organic > >> dissemination of information through various means. > >> > >> In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one > >> e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it now. I > >> responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with some > >> effort it could happen also in previously. > >> > >> > I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation? > >> > >> I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many > >> issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that > >> community networks are mostly presented through the economic > >> perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This is > >> like saying that people participate in free software projects because > >> software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of other > >> reasons as well. > >> > >> Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a survey > >> and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, why > >> they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and read > >> them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences > >> approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a > >> document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite > >> other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which > >> analyze motivations behind people doing community networks? > >> > >> What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that your > >> data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people > >> participate. But I know from my long participation in these networks, > >> that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and > >> especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet > >> community get understanding of this community networks (and other > >> alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice because > >> after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they just want > >> cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the heart of > >> the community. > >> > >> Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Internet > >> for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know > >> that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered > >> members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer > >> comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix the > >> antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you will > >> do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe, but > >> probably not. > >> > >> > >> Mitar > >> > >> -- > >> http://mitar.tnode.com/ > >> https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > > > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > --001a11c3dc2ea58bfb0530445e9d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think inclusivity is by definition called for in any gai= a work.

the points you made in your original long messag= e are covered to some extent in the current doc, but having more data point= s from other countries/cultures is, in my view, extremely important

just on your very first point, for example, about altruis= m - all too often, the "consensus" in a lot of tech/geek (dare i = say neo-liberal) world is that you have to have monetary incentives (e.g. m= arket will fix things is a mantra in the IETF) and yet the evidence from ma= ny studies is that most the world ticks over on unpaid labour (parenting, h= ousework, caring etc) and things like common interest - so the more example= s of this in community networks, the more we can dispel the myth that you h= ave to build a for-profit system - the myth of the tragedy of the commons (= oft-repeated in ignorance of how long the common grazing lands in mongolia = persisted (literally, millenia)) is quite pervasive

on the technical and deployment side, differences matter too, since diver= sity allows us to see how the design space has been (succesfully) explored = and would allow new potential deployment efforts to choose a better fit for= the given environment....

maybe for now, if you h= ave this written up, the current draft could add a reference?

On Tue, Apr 12, 201= 6 at 6:04 AM, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!

I understand the scope. And my comments mostly relate to the community
networks aspect of this document. As you are providing overview of
community networks as part of alternative networks, I provided some
feedback on that as I am familiar with those, more than other forms of
alternative networks.

As such, I find description of community networks as found in this
document imprecise and incomplete.

It is interesting that you are counting Freifunk and wlan slovenija to
crowdshared approach? Why is that? At least for wlan slovenija I can
say that we are first a community network, but it is true that we are
probably a bit different one to guifi.net because we started from
urban areas and a position of abundance. But this is just one of those
many factors of diversity in community networks.

In any case, however you want to structure or use terminology, none of
your types of alternative networks corresponds to goals and motivation
found in networks I know. So maybe you are then not describing all
types of alternative networks. Or you have to extend existing terms
with also other types of goals and motivations.

I would propose, that first it would be useful to extend the goals and
motivations section itself. And then go through all existing types of
alternative networks mentioned in the document and try to see how they
align with those new goals and motivations.


Mitar

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
<arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hello Mitar - I just managed to go through your emails in full :).
>
> Ok - I think I got the confusion - and I think I should clear it (prob= ably
> Jose can add or correct me since he is the actual driver behind this d= raft)
> -
>
> the draft is about alternative networks to traditional network operato= r
> based --
>
> so community networks was one of them - the draft was not about commun= ity
> networks per se in its entirety.
>
> So we just give an overview of the different approaches (e.g. WISPs ar= e one
> of them, CNs is another, the crowdshared approach like PAWS/Freifunk o= r what
> you are doing in slovenia is the other) --
>
> so this draft gives a summary of the different approaches and the tech= ,
> economics, social, regulatory around these different approaches.
>
> Probably I am wondering whether this is where the confusion likes sinc= e you
> see us talking about economics?
>
> The goal of the draft was discussed as I said two years ago -- so the = focus
> was not just on community networks.
>
> But I agree and always welcome tech related suggestions - ofcourse the= y need
> to be improvised - we should do that.
>
> Regards
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 21:12, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
>> <arjuna.sat= hiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feed= back...
>>
>> That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists sho= uld
>> just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them?
>>
>> You are working on describing community networks, then it would be=
>> useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and= get
>> their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I rememb= er
>> seeing messages around:
>>
>> http://p2pvalue.eu/
>>
>> I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on org= anic
>> dissemination of information through various means.
>>
>> In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one<= br> >> e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it no= w. I
>> responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with som= e
>> effort it could happen also in previously.
>>
>> > I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterp= retation?
>>
>> I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many >> issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that
>> community networks are mostly presented through the economic
>> perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This = is
>> like saying that people participate in free software projects beca= use
>> software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of o= ther
>> reasons as well.
>>
>> Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a su= rvey
>> and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, = why
>> they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and re= ad
>> them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences >> approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a<= br> >> document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite<= br> >> other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which >> analyze motivations behind people doing community networks?
>>
>> What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that = your
>> data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people
>> participate. But I know from my long participation in these networ= ks,
>> that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and
>> especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet
>> community get understanding of this community networks (and other<= br> >> alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice bec= ause
>> after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they j= ust want
>> cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the= heart of
>> the community.
>>
>> Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Inter= net
>> for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know=
>> that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered
>> members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer<= br> >> comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix = the
>> antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you wi= ll
>> do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe,= but
>> probably not.
>>
>>
>> Mitar
>>
>> --
>> http://mitar.tnode.com/
>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>
>
>
>
> --
> Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d



--
ht= tp://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

_______________________= ________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

--001a11c3dc2ea58bfb0530445e9d-- From nobody Tue Apr 12 00:39:35 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DB812E79C for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:39:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IsAwKPRfJBXt for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2516D12E799 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id g185so17706869ioa.2 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:39:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=WNOwgtuaC3wRiKTVM4n7jEJlU+YH/TADelBBqU/Owb4=; b=noPBKW3zZ9aKyb/VmY4cjuTJSgqZdZ8kZaa+/FEdgtEo9e233LPgkE92C9m8DSoj46 9d5iCpQKpmut150RwJAz3fVGa34NapL4Zn+WIeG652KH+qeC5PHRaLGH2I+VwLNpoAbE U7BOEAQfYoc8gbTxJU8KGyYbZHS6LVbXHr66VUpX6WJHpdbIGgQmqXxaT/c3Oe4mUDVV 6mk0X5M9z0+hW+PWCPh6+94jTp2v1rtZ4Y31cSt+fhUmDBRPZ7PfyDaq2DJSEo0FTlF4 X31HJW6Cj8vNqLhZpnd5OMCR8cCVdXEqt0PS0ritezI4KDpn1pIkTuAgBHsTWHWqebmc brlg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=WNOwgtuaC3wRiKTVM4n7jEJlU+YH/TADelBBqU/Owb4=; b=mWZwP5CEa1FzP3OQOQpd3tF87tUgHsLW+4NxPIwOzNggDnZ0Uqdr76adfdmaZ3mFcZ HPIP4Fq/ST8vsGF8Z46fb+vvuXBEJ+Zb6FgdVL06J5LPWV9739Q6wBT3WYLmXSrzqwfB m1v2/99iqTn9iXX+6+PhYxiWbCc76owVMmh4G28yaxUJxx1lYV5eZbHHszZaBK8B8nLI QHwvF1MkBEQ/EQpJlQzO7VjIP0D51/Zcmx+0rPbcA0sx/XA3asQdKwomJUUYTP42NKgk 7yQ7SKPFVwVCLlPV9t0O6Rb7YgMr/ZXCdkHD6eGKwjQNYaum3VqtzsUyMtNAM93zyTFN aSPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWMG2anyo/Q/UVZ+sr3o31U/cWVJlR7a8o64j/G/LLSEEujsbLM2FhblI/Y6s++GEHYI4GUKzitTloDZg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.134.8 with SMTP id i8mr2165071iod.130.1460446771549; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:39:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:39:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jon Crowcroft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Arjuna Sathiaseelan , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:39:34 -0000 Hi! On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Jon Crowcroft wrote: > the myth of the tragedy of the commons (oft-repeated in > ignorance of how long the common grazing lands in mongolia persisted > (literally, millenia)) is quite pervasive I like this example as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acequia > maybe for now, if you have this written up, the current draft could add a > reference? I do not know what is the process here. Do you have these drafts in some git? I could make a pull request with concrete proposed changes? In any case, I hope that I provided concrete examples and concrete suggestions, wording can be changed a bit, of course (I am not a native speaker), but I hope that ideas of what is missing or what I was trying to convey are clear enough. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Tue Apr 12 01:05:43 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974F712D8E5 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:05:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZwD-KJ8eSUa for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D09312D0DA for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3C85Ux3015911; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:05:31 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Eggert, Lars'" , "'Matthew Ford'" , "'Arjuna Sathiaseelan'" References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:06:04 +0200 Message-ID: <012801d19492$297f9c20$7c7ed460$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQKWjG7UzSjw6ikG1xI9fHNnp9jdigIWM/DoAM+KOeGd5NbaUA== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Cc: 'gaia' Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:05:41 -0000 Hi Lars, Mat and Arjuna (and all), I have been reading all the e-mails (a lot of them BTW, which means that this draft has raised some interest). After a lot of work and discussion, and after the Research Group Last Call and the IRSG Review, I thought we had converged to something useful, but it seems the document can still be improved. The question is that we have to find a balance between these two extremes: "the perfect document that everyone likes and will never be finished" and "an imperfect document that can at least be published". This is my two-step proposal: 1) We (the authors, and myself as the editor) will build a new version (05) of the document including the suggestions of the last week, but without substantially modifying it. I think we can do it this week (we have already included a number of small improvements). We may ask for feedback from the people who have suggested some changes. 2) People read it slowly, and next week we can make this decision in the list: a) We move forward with the document version 05 as it is (perhaps with some minor improvements). b) Re-open the discussion and include more substantial changes, which may require a new Last Call and IRSG Review. Do you think this can be a good approach? Jose > -----Mensaje original----- > De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Eggert, Lars > Enviado el: martes, 12 de abril de 2016 7:22 > Para: Jose Saldana > CC: gaia ; Mitar > Asunto: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments > > Hi, > > On 2016-04-11, at 16:46, Jose Saldana wrote: > > The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the > > first version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and > > discussion, the draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the > IRSG review. > > you of course mean research group last call :-) > > > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying it. > > Well, you can modify it, but it would imply re-running the last call and IRSG Review. > It is a judgment call for the RG chairs whether they believe that a major revision > would result in a document that is so much better that it is worth incurring the extra > delay until publication. > > Lars From nobody Tue Apr 12 02:12:16 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D5812EA88 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:12:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4d9T6o2FfQH8 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6.mo5.mail-out.ovh.net (6.mo5.mail-out.ovh.net [178.32.119.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7408B12EA8E for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail414.ha.ovh.net (b6.ovh.net [213.186.33.56]) by mo5.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BD5FAFFB1EF for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:12:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (HELO queueout) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Apr 2016 11:12:09 +0200 Received: from 29.237.197.178.dynamic.wless.lssmb00p-cgnat.res.cust.swisscom.ch (HELO ?192.168.43.179?) (panayotis@nethood.org@178.197.237.29) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 12 Apr 2016 11:12:05 +0200 To: gaia@irtf.org References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> <012801d19492$297f9c20$7c7ed460$@unizar.es> From: panayotis antoniadis Message-ID: <570CBBE4.2000102@nethood.org> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:12:04 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <012801d19492$297f9c20$7c7ed460$@unizar.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 13539227854926954334 X-Ovh-Remote: 178.197.237.29 (29.237.197.178.dynamic.wless.lssmb00p-cgnat.res.cust.swisscom.ch) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-OVH-SPAMSTATE: OK X-OVH-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-OVH-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeekkedrheduucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuqfggjfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenuc X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeekkedrhedugdduvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecu Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:12:15 -0000 Dear all, I am following the evolution of this draft since the beginning and I have started many draft long e-mails that I finally abandoned :-) I think that the easiest way to resolve the "conflict" is to restrict the scope of the draft than to expand it. For example, making even more clear that the interest is on alternative networks that offer Internet access, and mostly on the technical questions, avoiding to go into the question of "local" services, the concept of community, motivations, and other social and political aspects. There is a huge literature in social sciences that tries to cover this dimension (e.g., work by Alison Powell, Mark Gaved, Christian Sandvig, Katrina Jungnickel, and more) and the authors could just acknowledge that such issues go beyond the scope of the draft. Being an engineer that has tried to explore this other "culture" of science in the context of Community Networks I could try to help. Btw, if you are in London next week I will be talking at UCL on why we should make as clear as possible the two possible roles of a community network, Internet access and local services, if we wish them to proliferate along both directions :-) See http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~uceeips/group-seminars.html Best, Panayotis Antoniadis http://nethood.org/panayotis/ On 12/04/16 10:06, Jose Saldana wrote: > Hi Lars, Mat and Arjuna (and all), > > I have been reading all the e-mails (a lot of them BTW, which means that > this draft has raised some interest). > > After a lot of work and discussion, and after the Research Group Last Call > and the IRSG Review, I thought we had converged to something useful, but it > seems the document can still be improved. > > The question is that we have to find a balance between these two extremes: > "the perfect document that everyone likes and will never be finished" and > "an imperfect document that can at least be published". > > This is my two-step proposal: > > 1) We (the authors, and myself as the editor) will build a new version (05) > of the document including the suggestions of the last week, but without > substantially modifying it. I think we can do it this week (we have already > included a number of small improvements). We may ask for feedback from the > people who have suggested some changes. > > 2) People read it slowly, and next week we can make this decision in the > list: > a) We move forward with the document version 05 as it is (perhaps > with some minor improvements). > b) Re-open the discussion and include more substantial changes, > which may require a new Last Call and IRSG Review. > > > Do you think this can be a good approach? > > Jose > >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Eggert, Lars >> Enviado el: martes, 12 de abril de 2016 7:22 >> Para: Jose Saldana >> CC: gaia ; Mitar >> Asunto: Re: [gaia] Comments on: > draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments >> Hi, >> >> On 2016-04-11, at 16:46, Jose Saldana wrote: >>> The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the >>> first version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and >>> discussion, the draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, > and the >> IRSG review. >> >> you of course mean research group last call :-) >> >>> So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying > it. >> Well, you can modify it, but it would imply re-running the last call and > IRSG Review. >> It is a judgment call for the RG chairs whether they believe that a major > revision >> would result in a document that is so much better that it is worth > incurring the extra >> delay until publication. >> >> Lars > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia From nobody Tue Apr 12 02:39:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC9812EB31 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:39:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isoc.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8kIhVuGQ5rbI for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0077.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A894A12EB13 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:39:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-isoc-org; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=jrWjOnYNszs8SSC9uqgBielw1y6T/T9v0zilYatfyF8=; b=XdulJhhyOLa42Bq3HjCTV83ciS8peUzyFjemwXHIJv0jYbJ4tcJinaWFYOkwF0yPGuzLQV3faP5gF3gm+HwF8CyByZZXdVS8eItn72HbgcH8rteEWqmM7obt4Y/xIXT9MiwCemDvM19pViW6GQX1FSvzCLfo0yBcd61AwiBBj+M= Authentication-Results: unizar.es; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;unizar.es; dmarc=none action=none header.from=isoc.org; Received: from isoc-y7g5rl.lan (87.114.245.202) by CY1PR06MB2220.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.166.193.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.453.26; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:39:38 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" From: Matthew Ford In-Reply-To: <012801d19492$297f9c20$7c7ed460$@unizar.es> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:39:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <4230984B-F65A-442A-87ED-7E194C86AB79@isoc.org> References: <00e601d19400$f7bf3830$e73da890$@unizar.es> <012801d19492$297f9c20$7c7ed460$@unizar.es> To: Jose Saldana X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-Originating-IP: [87.114.245.202] X-ClientProxiedBy: DB4PR06CA0014.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.40.142) To CY1PR06MB2220.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.166.193.155) X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: ec0f6fe3-49c2-4eca-c069-08d362b65e9c X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; CY1PR06MB2220; 2:F+0UxBTgqT0HhSlTG5h6w7mG6Hl9XKM/n0i5EAWkav7010WPl+2sALvfw8Y38+5w2wXkEbhHyEVsIpErlplTmONJAACG5wvIab/j+dHHcxi5tt95iH5R6Bu22CwEes8sbAqxPAO8XT4yv8LCBWF8fkW0nN1rjYFVbPy3dOIEAZ24Nat18ETNylp8+MZeti8L; 3:gU5YupVFESspA/+qR8O/oyyrVHiX9zvCwDJ0AcyXLTpPCQXrFuNwPrnLvFJ2aW5L9Ya9ah/LwSSphhyFDdDDyJlTSpTHiI9+avZPlIPQNnrx0RQOepyam3oduhp/Atxh; 25:eqD9XUuB6rHzZtbXZEXosZIOEKn1ZYkB2k/gh29pdPEqvwxpjD+CwttNXURDqGLNOoyOSaHbze9iDxsQe2cgRXnUHGR4hmsGG4EJ02BXhhNqQIQ443USOIFxC+OOKbzX+YT8UX3PV6JqlpPP60fQUOvzhnwINaWzMjKFj5DfmY8iLJA83bhsjS4i5nt8fCWMntqhxzg0DsUC6131GgArX19Y7HIRFhblp64H5wBrBZ9jzfx5/ga0NeFuJnAJDa+VlnqV2wpR+9Jy26F0f9Pey20OHLtKpDUhXBgpMXBvPiiVVYAHcK0OoYh0TSg0FsuauRj22WhJub9rowxKXjGObw== X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR06MB2220; X-LD-Processed: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f,ExtAddr X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; CY1PR06MB2220; 20: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; 4:YWsheyPXLsAHvKGHBNkjxrc6iyEvRl+Etm5nhWFw9L9gEqRXjVew99Cq9a4RSpXTyocLHxr/y5dQgg0RFuysw1Hod21b5iUQn+SJzDwa8HNKaoFSnwE/aJQzIGXwBmXyOxoRPIPsMvL4uEZ6E4ATnmtTPL4+ZQwVz7nmuCmN648cGleRvdSbOnSMZG4EqlPicboeJY1le653Da+sNRQenX1EL07ohV7dqXHQyfaVNcUuUstV+cu73toXJySWz1Ah7zWoW9Ydh2vUrwgfAVckCs7oe4Xmn7cOI0qV3y+O7yNznBuuWR5gJBBjiwVKwxQplFsgUf6VQuELXgzBhB+jn7yJr6F4WhRpZ0Frkfq1C5HHE7ezqgvqUzRiYg3izBNt X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:CY1PR06MB2220; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR06MB2220; X-Forefront-PRVS: 0910AAF391 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4630300001)(6009001)(24454002)(77096005)(110136002)(50986999)(76176999)(6116002)(42186005)(92566002)(3846002)(19580395003)(5004730100002)(50466002)(586003)(230783001)(189998001)(2950100001)(19580405001)(82746002)(4326007)(81166005)(23676002)(36756003)(50226001)(1096002)(5008740100001)(561944003)(93886004)(33656002)(83716003)(2906002)(47776003)(66066001)(57306001)(86362001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR06MB2220; H:isoc-y7g5rl.lan; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: =?utf-8?B?MTtDWTFQUjA2TUIyMjIwOzIzOmxrdU9lMXdpWVFTd3ZEOXpoVmlycnVHSFNC?= =?utf-8?B?cWE3dmovRWRDa3RzQ0w5YmdIMmVFc3dwWEJLSFRsVWhWajFWL1Nnc29LQ1Qr?= =?utf-8?B?RW5xL1UwSVJMTVd4VllkUkswMTRXdFZKOSs4UVUzZFpyaTcwN1ptbnNTRm14?= =?utf-8?B?NG52MWU4d0RjSDdhc1FCWDlyVG42WkZJQU9pQ1g2eFl4eTBaMUxPMzJRYlk2?= =?utf-8?B?WWZCMkpEM1hGOXFzeHNTV0FaWXhNQmQ2a0lGdS9MeEx2Q2EyTGFYR3ZNUjJ3?= =?utf-8?B?TTVMMUpGL0tnVVRqaUl2T3AyNGtMeWdldkZYK3czS091dEpPemV5a01WM1Ra?= =?utf-8?B?eUlDaENmWkdRbUtsVzlWT2ZXamp2UjA4bXJsMnFGeWtDSDdNckJQVk5DNmFq?= =?utf-8?B?ZFJlMzhpQThwUHRYSU5tc1o5eEU0QlJJd3AwZ09sZm5KajRES0JGdmJQY2ZC?= =?utf-8?B?Q0ZianBVT09LME4zUWVTZlp0SUkyS1daRjF0SFd6L1JYQVV1cGtNQWxVRTRy?= =?utf-8?B?L05TRGNzMnJOWGRNV0hCWXlncFFkK0h1dFBYMk5QRll3eXROYXRaTWx4T3RY?= =?utf-8?B?d0t1VjR0TnMwNllQbnZEVTdadVUzZjU1bFRteEI5UStGZ3VPdVRWcVc1aldv?= =?utf-8?B?c05TK09KdnBRS1ZHN1U0eXpESVRvQVdqcmgvSk9YcWdaWVhiZmwyMUxicENP?= =?utf-8?B?cnhhNGVndlpTc0YxMFRKQU05YmFibnN1Tk1aUzMwUnRBWEk4endxN0JBcFVw?= =?utf-8?B?b1Zkc09QK054K3JIOHV2Kzg0dVh6cHg5dDhMSXA1L253aVJuK3ZXVWtXQnZB?= =?utf-8?B?dkU2aTBxMklhb3NVUTB3REpEOG14dVBKSmE2eVFvWWRQb3YrOTZ5dVZOQ1BI?= =?utf-8?B?VUFLQjRZanFOWjR1UTFXU0p5ZzBZRUlneFBpSzgrTXlNMGZQTHFSaHZHcWlS?= =?utf-8?B?RVpPT3R0SWFEK3JsUDRkOVpqbStTUllPYTJ6OUdMa2Y0YWhDWXpSYzJyYTd5?= =?utf-8?B?ZlBidmJqeEhlUE5oNzVhMVF6TEtLWjJRRC9lWDE2dC9GRitwM3d4WVhOaGhQ?= =?utf-8?B?c0pFOUdWdkxQY09sbmdFTmhOUTF5MFl6S1ZRY2ZGeVg1bnB3bGVhUGhXVkpZ?= =?utf-8?B?QmF6ZkZXc3JxaDVkYkwzZzBRZjBEMGs2azh6cDVJM3F5cFpVQ0hBNUhmc2lZ?= =?utf-8?B?WEgvRU1maDAvcU5YZDJhcnRqMEcvSGFDL3pvajYvem5OMWh2dHBJeWQyTHEz?= =?utf-8?B?ZnY5SWhGcTZGY0x3MWRnOG5xbndYOU1LaThlYmpqY05oa3ZYM05TNlpYS2Y5?= =?utf-8?Q?pce6UdjyJbbO0Sj7eaXicaGmvwp0xi8Q=3D?= X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; CY1PR06MB2220; 5:2y1lwP1Ur8808sKypxA21wgTzXqn6b4pgGKGi1OHk+zdfpLegUs5L4FpqmMQx0MNIdNSnQYqZoRTVnkjFmvNp+AOoP4wuciDhU8o5GNv9wOg6XarIcjMm111dZXu/86Tmd7jmFetbtXaau5FHn2krQ==; 24:XsGup1ZuoWluvIFKKsDD3cX9QBdstxTwGmkXBmjvrH2K8BMHJisXaUP5S/ROZwadzWSSyAPkbNQMz/3LrE7FEvuULj87g4U3Ews+HWR0tc0= SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23 SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2016 09:39:38.8397 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR06MB2220 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Lars Eggert , Arjuna Sathiaseelan Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:39:45 -0000 Hi Jose, > On 12 Apr 2016, at 09:06, Jose Saldana wrote: >=20 > This is my two-step proposal: >=20 > 1) We (the authors, and myself as the editor) will build a new version = (05) > of the document including the suggestions of the last week, but = without > substantially modifying it. I think we can do it this week (we have = already > included a number of small improvements). We may ask for feedback from = the > people who have suggested some changes. >=20 We have had a lot of good input on the list recently which is great! = It=E2=80=99s unfortunate that it arrived when it did, but I don=E2=80=99t = think it should be set aside because of procedural concerns. So, yes, please work on a new rev that addresses recent input and = comments as you are willing and when we have that in hand the chairs can = decide how to proceed. Working with those people suggesting changes = sounds like a very sensible approach. Mat= From nobody Tue Apr 12 06:55:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFDE12E132 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:54:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8BWxIFKyAj7Y for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAE4412E083 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CDs2NE007106; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:54:03 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Nicol=E1s_Ech=E1niz'?=" , Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:54:08 +0200 Message-ID: <004701d194c2$cc5f02c0$651d0840$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUvK+LK2NXzwoBSYeDj3moyRBQCw== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Nicolas review #1. Latin American experiences X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:55:00 -0000 Hi, I will try to dissect the different questions into different threads. This one is about the first comment: > Hi everyone, > > We've been very busy in Argentina regarding the negative impact the change in > government has had on many state policies that had to do with digital inclusion and > I'm just now being able to look at stuff that piled up during the past months. > > Commenting on this draft was one of those things I wanted to do so here it goes. > > I'm referring to this version: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments- 04 > > Hope it's the most current one. Yes, it is. > > > First of all I want to point out that when I refer to "our model" or "our experience" I'm > referring to these networks: > > http://libremap.net/#bbox/-41.869560826994544,-82.529296875,- > 21.779905342529634,-40.5615234375 > > ... which are based on AlterMundi's community network model, based mainly on > Libre-Mesh firmware which we co-develop: http://libre-mesh.org/ > > and a basic hardware/antenna reference that we recommend after some years of > experience deploying community networks in small towns and rural areas in Latin > America (mostly Argentina): > http://youtu.be/luI5eEMa6BQ > https://www.newamerica.org/oti/do-it-yourself-antennas-for-community-network s/ > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3LyuF2qSSY > > > I just mention this info for context because I've found no reference to Latin > American experiences in the document and maybe our approach to this matter has > some peculiarities worth mentioning. I would like to say that this draft is not about deployment experiences. There are plans for building such document in the future, but the current draft is just a classification. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00916.html By the way, we need volunteers for this draft. But perhaps we should first finish the other one... > > > Please know I'm not trying to be disrespectful with the work being done, I consider it > to be important. I just want to give you our point of view and my personal > impressions as a Community Networks activist from Latin America that started in > the "old days" (2003) and saw quite a bit of the evolution our projects experimented > during all these years. Don't worry a bit. Thanks a lot for your comments. Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 06:55:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B3D12D9D7 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:55:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64jqy-PcQvkj for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D244E12D1D2 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CDs2NG007106; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:54:51 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Nicol=E1s_Ech=E1niz'?=" , Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:54:57 +0200 Message-ID: <004801d194c2$e64590a0$b2d0b1e0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUvaznxr6uku6ETwaC2mwZDTj86w== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Cc: niels@article19.org Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Nicolas review #2 "global north" and "global south" X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:55:16 -0000 Hi > # Regarding point 3 > > "For the purpose of this document, a distinction between "global north" and "global > south" zones is made, highlighting the factors related to ICT ..." > > Coming from the "global south" the approach reads like an over-simplification. In > many Latin American countries (which by the proposede definition are part of that > south) the legal debate is more advanced than in the north. Take Network Neutrality > for example, which is law at least in Chile and Argentina while many northern > countries are still debating it. > Other examploes: Community Networks are considered as a special case in > Argentina Digital law; Uruguay has an extensive long-running OLPC program, > Argentina has one also (with more than 5.000.000 computers delivered to every > child studying in public schools)... There are many more examples of policy in Latin > America that are very poorly described by this over-simplification. > There are also counter-examples regarding the Global North, where legislation is > actually hindering the realization of a Free Internet. Take the FCC ruling which is > now making router providers close their routers as one example[-1]. Or the Gag > Law in Spain [0] which would be unacceptable in many "global south" countries. > > The terms "global south/north" are actually not used in most of the document so the > whole definition seems overkill or out of place. Do a search for "global south" > outside the definitions to check this. > If I were to decide, I'd replace Global South for the more standard "Developing > countries" (which is also ugly but does not need a long definition) in the two or three > places where the other term is used and just avoid the definition altogether. Well, in this case, I must say the terms "global north" and "global south" were introduced as a consequence of the IRSG review (see point 1 in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01059.html). In the previous version we talked about "developing countries": https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments- 03 So if you want, we can discuss this in the list. I am not an expert, though. > > On the other hand, citing some existing legal/regulatory best and worst practices > around the world could actually be an interesting addition to the document. I think this goes beyond the scope of the document. But it is just my opinion. Thanks, Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 07:08:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59B812E80D for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sqxUIGT4SBJw for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B446112E87E for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CE8JVo020740; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:08:19 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:08:25 +0200 Message-ID: <005601d194c4$c7894ce0$569be6a0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUxAw8BlIojGV7Th2H9H6kugyT6Q== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #1: Motivations X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:08:28 -0000 Hi, > Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From our network and > from my experience talking to other community networks, I would claim that many > share also much more altruistic motivations. For example, our whole network is > build around principle that some of us have abundance of Internet connectivity at > home (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us will > share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course there are other > motivations why people participate, and everyone has a different mix of those > motivations, but I definitely think that the list should be extended to include: > > - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism > - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, > decentralization to minimize control, showing that alternative is possible) > - building a new type of commons > - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a say in > operations > - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the community (eg. > http://tidepools.co/) > - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other extreme situations > - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, empowering > others to take their Internet connectivity into their own hands > > An example of another network describing itself with much more of what I am > writing than what is currently on the list: > https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh > > All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I remembered without > much thinking) for many community networks. I do not think the list in section 4.2 > can ever be comprehensive, but I was really taken aback from its economy-centric > bias at the moment. Most community networks do not operate on that level. It is of > course present, but there are some other primary motivations why people are doing > it. This would be the new version of this subsection. Feel free to send your comments. 4.2. Goals and motivation Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and usage hurdles: o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end user, or both). o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional carrier-based financing). o Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network administration). o Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimentation and teaching. o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in general; relevance, etc.) o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities). o Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic reasons. o Becoming an active participant in the deployment and management of a real and operational network. o Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, etc. o Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and other extreme situations. Best regards, Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 07:14:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADCE12EC5D for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KUaNBSYvndUo for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B24EA12EC22 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CEE9Ex008920; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:14:09 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:14:12 +0200 Message-ID: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUxT0EaNpKPNPaTHeNZkQRlYJOFA== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:14:22 -0000 Hi, > Section 4.5, typical scenarios: > > I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any network I know of > outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Community networks > maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow and spread > over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries. In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for rural areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the future a lot of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural deployments exist, so for me the classification makes sense. Thanks! Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 07:30:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2946412EEBE for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id op48gz3qJqK8 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6632412EEBD for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CELsT8025773; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:21:54 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:22:00 +0200 Message-ID: <005c01d194c6$ad5c5540$0814ffc0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUxaF2J/9kYI99Su+X8SSfIYHnwA== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #4. Classification X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:30:48 -0000 Hi, > Section 5, classification of alternative networks: > > Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited perspective. I would > claim that most alternative networks go beyond just incentives, but exist because of > various beliefs: about how networks should operate, who should have control over > them, the importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc. We tried to find some "orthogonal" axes (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00640.html) and we arrived to these: 4.1. Commercial model / promoter 4.2. Goals and motivation 4.3. Administrative model 4.4. Technologies employed 4.5. Typical scenarios They may not be "orthogonal", and not every combination of the criteria does make sense, but I think they are useful for classifying the networks. > > Section 5.1, community networks: > > As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list and I think you > should include at least ones I listed above. But probably you should do a survey and > ask community networks what are their goals and motivations, instead of trying to > guess them. (If you have done such a survey, I would love to see data.) The list of motivations has been expanded as you suggested. > > Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default. Can you provide a reference? Thanks! Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 07:30:53 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37AA12EE51 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:30:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W9dSzfNm__vW for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 646F512EEBC for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CEBDdD009045; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:11:13 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:11:19 +0200 Message-ID: <005801d194c5$2f46eae0$8dd4c0a0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUxNM31TlRCW+2SH2OYCvww76J1Q== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #2: Technologies employed X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:30:50 -0000 Hi, > Section 4.4, technologies employed: > > "Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some villages." > > Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages mentioned? > Optical systems can also be used elsewhere. It is just an example of an alternative network using wired technologies. > > Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no > fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially in high-density > urban environments because of no interference. Is this technology being used in any Alternative Network deployment? If so, please provide a reference so we can include it in the document. Thanks in advance! Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 07:38:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE0112DA1E for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:38:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fjuma_s_oelx for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D00512E470 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CEcilM015335; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:38:44 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:38:48 +0200 Message-ID: <006e01d194c9$063c0870$12b41950$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUyQXyE65+gzKjQiGq08bvDGkMWg== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #5: Community Networks X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:38:57 -0000 Hi, > Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be small, city > only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are focused on one region, some > are distributed around larger region, connected with VPN together. Ok. We can remove "large-scale" > > "There is a shared platform (e.g. a web site) where a minimum coordination is > performed. This way, community members with the right permissions have an > obvious and direct form of organizational control over the overall operation of the > network (e.g. IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own > participation in the network)." > > This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community networks with > much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with > IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible. > > Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how control over the > routing of the network has anything with the existence of the shared platform? In > wlan slovenija network we also use a web shared platform, but that platform does > not control the network. It just helps in coordination. Network would operate even > without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about use of IP space, > and learning how to configure their nodes. > > So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core network's > resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries, > etc.) are managed. The paragraph has been rebuilt. See the new version below. > > "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the system may add > link segments to the network in such a way that the new segments can support > multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of the joined > network, including the capacity to further extend the network. Once these link > segments are joined to the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction > between the previous and the new extent of the network." > > Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with "autonomous > system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) This is true. I have added "individuals". > > So what exactly is the property which differentiates community networks? Maybe > there is none. Maybe community networks are simply trying to (re)build the Internet, > but this time having infrastructure owned by participants, which are not just > consumers, but are participating. > > I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and that people own > the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This should be more clearly > explained. So it is not so much about technology in community networks, but about > who owns and controls equipment (people/users/participants), and who coordinates > the network growth (people/users/participants). The line between users, providers, > participants, people gets blurred. I think all the definitions and characteristics given in the document may provide a good idea of what a CN is. > > "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has > contributed. > > Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for backbone > nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track ownership of equipment, > because they do not care about ownership if it is operating according to common > principles. And if it is not, it should not be in the network no matter who owns the > equipment. "Usually" has been added. This is the new version. Feel free to make some improvement suggestions: 5.1. Community Networks +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | Commercial | community | | model/promoter | | +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | Goals and | reducing hurdles; to serve underserved | | motivation | areas; network neutrality | +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | Administration | non-centralized | +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | Technologies | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012], optical fiber | +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | Typical scenarios | urban and rural | +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ Table 1: Community Networks' characteristics summary Community Networks are non-centralized, self-managed networks sharing these characteristics: o They start and grow organically, they are open to participation from everyone, sharing an open peering agreement. Community members directly contribute active (not just passive) network infrastructure. The network grows as new hosts and links are added. o Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership of the network itself is non-centralized and open. Different degrees of centralization can be found in Community Networks. In some of them, a shared platform (e.g. a web site) may exist where a minimum coordination is performed. Community members with the right permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control over the overall organization of the network (e.g. IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in the network). o The network can serve as a backhaul for providing a whole range of services and applications, from completely free to even commercial services. Hardware and software used in Community Networks can be very diverse, even inside one network. A Community Network can have both wired and wireless links. Multiple routing protocols or network topology management systems may coexist in the network. These networks grow organically, since they are formed by the aggregation of nodes belonging to different users. A minimal governance infrastructure is required in order to coordinate IP addressing, routing, etc. An example of this kind of Community Network is described in [Braem]. A technological analysis a community network is presented in [Vega_b], focused on technological network diversity, topology characteristics, evolution of the network over time, robustness and reliability, and networking service availability. These networks follow a participatory model, which has been shown effective in connecting geographically dispersed people, thus enhancing and extending digital Internet rights. The fact of the users adding new infrastructure (i.e. extensibility) can be used to formulate another definition: A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the previous and the new extent of the network. The term "participant" means an individual, who may become user, provider and manager of the network at the same time. In Community Networks, profit can only be made by offering services and not simply by supplying the infrastructure, because the infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (mainstream Internet Service Providers base their business on the control of the infrastructure). In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has contributed. The majority of Community Networks comply with the definition of Free Network, included in Section 2. Best regards, Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 07:40:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0732D12DF1B for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:40:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y9NxznAOBTEy for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83AA412DCA1 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CEePqD022801; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:40:25 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:40:31 +0200 Message-ID: <007201d194c9$43e89b70$cbb9d250$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUyQbWFZQlf4cpTnqzeshvSuszjA== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #6: Crowdshared approaches X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:40:35 -0000 Hi, > Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party stakeholders > > "VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an incentive > structure for all the actors: the end users get money for sharing their network, the > network operators are paid by the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio- > environmental role." > > I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section really do that. > In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/ movement is listed, but no shares or > money or any incentive structure is in place there for people to share their extra > Internet connectivity. > > So I would change this paragraph to: > > "VNOs can be organized to pay the sharers and the network operators, thus > creating an incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for > sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who in turn > accomplish their socio-environmental role. But VNOs can also operate on gift- > economy principles, where participants contribute to the commons by sharing their > resources knowing that this benefits all." > I agree. If people in the list do so, we can change the paragraph. Thanks, Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 07:47:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBBF12DC0B for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1S501leG2JtX for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBA912D5BE for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CEl5jp017370; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:47:05 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:47:09 +0200 Message-ID: <007401d194ca$32320aa0$96961fe0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUyVBz0y+/sbr3TbumJf2AO86JnQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #7: MAC protocols X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:47:14 -0000 Hi, > Section 6.2.1, Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless links > > "Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who design, deploy > and manage wireless networks." > > Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of scale and > mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is so popular in alternative > networks. You can get a device for $10. And you can get this because everyone is > producing this hardware, and the hardware is not just made for the alternative > networks. In contrast, traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed only for > them. Even if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than number of > WiFi routers produced for the global market. This would be the new version of this subsection: 6.2.1. Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless Links Different protocols for Media Access Control, which also include physical layer (PHY) recommendations, are widely used in Alternative Network Deployments. Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who design, deploy and manage wireless networks. In addition, then ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of scale and mass production. The standards used in the vast majority of Alternative Networks come from the IEEE Standard Association's IEEE 802 Working Group. Standards developed by other international entities can also be used, as e.g. the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). > > Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that needed? Why > properties and descriptions of those standards should be in this draft? They belong > to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In this draft we can just reference those > standards. Like what of all this text is relevant to alternative networks? It is general > text which is true for any use: > > "802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for long range rural > communications in TV white space frequencies and first approved in July 2011. The > standard is similar to the 802.16 > (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio ability. The > maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps for a single 8 MHz channel using 64- > QAM modulation. The achievable range using the default MAC scheme is 30 km, > however 100 km is possible with special scheduling techniques. The MAC of 802.22 > is specifically customized for long distances - for example, slots in a frame destined > for more distant Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent before slots > destined for nearby CPEs. > > Base stations are required to have a Global Positioning System (GPS) and a > connection to the Internet in order to query a geolocation spectrum database. Once > the base station receives the allowed TV channels, it communicates a preferred > operating white space TV channel with the CPE devices. The standard also includes > a coexistence mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base stations > aware of the presence of a base station that is not part of the same network." > You are right. We have only briefly summarized each of the most popular standards, trying to focus on the characteristics that make them suitable for Alternative networks: kilometers, requirements, standards especially suited for ANs (e.g. WILD). We also talk about the maximum rates. So it is a matter of style if we remove some content from this section, I think. I would not touch it. Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 07:50:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E650612E06D for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sts09o7QS2iZ for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3A512D99E for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CEo5tm021969; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:50:05 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:50:10 +0200 Message-ID: <007601d194ca$9da2c590$d8e850b0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUyk60n4ArnHUbQO+TNsCNKUsLaQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #8: Mesh routing protocols X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:50:15 -0000 Hi, > Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols > > "A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State Routing > Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]." > > Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/, which is far from > the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in practice, ETX metric is used, > which is not even mentioned in RFC3626. > > Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many networks, and it is > even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you want to include a routing > protocol for alternative networks with IETF standard, you should include this one for > sure. This is the current version of the text. Could you please give an improved one? If you could give a reference to Babel (preferably a research paper) it would be great! 7.1.2.2. Mesh routing protocols A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]. The pro-active link state routing protocol is a good match with Alternative Networks because it has good performance in mesh networks where nodes have multiple interfaces. The Better Approach To Mobile Adhoc Networking (BATMAN) [Abolhasan] protocol was developed by members of the Freifunk community. The protocol handles all routing at layer 2, creating one bridged network. Parallel to BGP, some networks also run the BatMan-eXperimental (BMX6) protocol [Neumann_a]. This is an evolved version of the BATMAN protocol which is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the social structure of Alternative Networks. In [Neumann_b] a study of three proactive mesh routing protocols is presented, in terms of scalability, performance, and stability. Thanks in advance, Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 08:01:16 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC9A12EE4A for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdOt9H7Gj34w for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5800812DF1B for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CDs2NK007106; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:55:54 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Nicol=E1s_Ech=E1niz'?=" , Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:55:52 +0200 Message-ID: <004e01d194c3$0bbffc80$233ff580$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUwfVjrJLavaAIRdCEOL3xPTDXcQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Nicolas review, question #3: IP addressing X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:01:14 -0000 Hi, Nicol=E1s, > # Regarding section 7.1.1 on IP addressing >=20 > "Most known Alternative Networks started in or around the year 2000. > IPv6 was fully specified by then, but almost all Alternative Networks still use IPv4. A > survey [Avonts] indicated that IPv6 rollout presents a challenge to Community > Networks." >=20 > It would be interesting to detail here the experiences that have = evolved during the > past years in different community networks which are already deploying IPv6.[1] In > our case, we were the first group of networks in the region to provide public IPv6 to > end users[2], which we put in effect on the IPv6 World Launch day in = 2012. > The Avonts survey cited is from 2013 and most IPv6 adoption around the world > (which is still slow) has come later than that: > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html I would leave the experiences for the "deployment experiences" draft. However, I think we can add some text stating that some ANs have adopted IPv6: What about this? Feel free to suggest your improvements to the = text; 7.1.1. IP addressing Most Community Networks use private IPv4 address ranges, as defined by [RFC1918]. The motivation for this was the lower cost and the simplified IP allocation because of the large available address ranges. Most known Alternative Networks started in or around the year 2000. IPv6 was fully specified by then, but almost all Alternative Networks still use IPv4. A survey [Avonts] indicated that IPv6 rollout presented a challenge to Community Networks. However, some of them have already adopted it as e.g. ninux.org. Thanks, Jose From nobody Tue Apr 12 08:01:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A9112E2D7 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:01:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5t05CCyQJAB for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D19E12E7FC for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CDs2NJ007106; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:55:46 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Nicol=E1s_Ech=E1niz'?=" , Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:55:52 +0200 Message-ID: <004c01d194c3$06a5fc90$13f1f5b0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUweZQN5gV/nGPTS2VxHOQi5zQqg== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Nicolas review, question #5: Intranet/Internet X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:01:26 -0000 Hi, Nicol=E1s, > # Section Section 7.3 >=20 > Fails to describe the accomplishments of current "state of the art" community > networks in terms of their relation with the rest of the Internet. > The Intranet and Internet division proposed is contrary to what many people in the > Community Networks movement work for. >=20 > >From our perspective (which I know is shared by others[3]), a = Community > Network must aspire to become a part of the Internet. Many existing community > networks are Autonomous Systems and as such they should not be = considered > "Intranets". >=20 > >From this perspective, people participating in community networks = should be able > to offer locally hosted services not just to other network members but = to the global > Internet. We work to free the Internet, one chunk at a time, not to = build parallel > networks. > In order to accomplish this, networks should at least: > * obtain their own IP ranges > * deploy public IPv6 addressees to the end user devices > * interconnect the network with other Autonomous Systems in the region (preferably > through Internet Exchanges) > * try to provide symmetric bandwidth to everyone >=20 > All of these steps have been taken by different projects to different extents. In the > networks that deploy Libre-Mesh in Latin America, devices connected to = the > networks get public IPv6 and there's a DNS system in place that makes every host > globally accessible through it's fully qualified name. In the region = of C=F3rdoba where > the network is bigger (more than 100 nodes in 6 rural towns), we have = a peering > agreement with the local state university[4] (which also hosts the = IXP), and the > bandwidth to end users is symmetric and not artificially reduced. > IPv6 is provided through a community operated Tunnel Broker[5] where = no native > IPv6 routing can be achieved and through native deployment and peer agreements > where possible. >=20 > There are many interesting cases that are not represented by this = section of the > document. I believe further research or direct participation from the people involved > is needed to get this to a state where it better describes the current standards in > Community Networks. The section actually looks like a description of = the state of > community networks 10 years ago... >=20 I agree with you, it can be improved. Please feel free to suggest your improvements to the text below. I mean, = if you could provide an alternative text with the ideas above, it would be great. This is the current version of subsection 7.3: 7.3. Services provided This section provides an overview of the services between hosts inside the network. They can be divided into Intranet services, connecting hosts between them, and Internet services, connecting to nodes outside the network. 7.3.1. Intranet services Intranet services can include, but are not limited to: o Web browsing. o e-mail. o Remote desktop (e.g. using my home computer and my Internet connection when I am away). o FTP file sharing (e.g. distribution of software and media). o VoIP (e.g. with SIP). o P2P file sharing. o Public video cameras. o DNS. o Online games servers. o Jabber instant messaging. o Weather stations. o Network monitoring. o Videoconferencing / streaming. o Radio streaming. o Message / Bulletin board. 7.3.2. Access to the Internet 7.3.2.1. Web browsing proxies Due to bandwidth limitations, some services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) may not be allowed. In some of these cases, a number of federated proxies provide web browsing service for the users. 7.3.2.2. Use of VPNs Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with Internet access. 7.3.2.3. Other facilities Other facilities, as NTP or IRC servers may also be present in Alternative Networks. >=20 >=20 > Let me know if I can be of further assistance contacting other people = or providing a > better description of the cases we know of. >=20 >=20 > Cheers! > Nico Thanks in advance, Jose >=20 >=20 >=20 > [-1] http://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers= / >=20 > [0] http://pillku.com/article/ipv6-en-redes-libres-la-experiencia-de-ninux/ >=20 > [1] = https://revolution-news.com/spanish-congress-approves-draconian-laws- > essentially-sending-spain-back-to-the-dark-ages/ >=20 > [2] = https://blog.altermundi.net/article/ips-publicas-para-todo-el-mundo/ >=20 > [3] http://pillku.com/article/las-redes-libres-y-la-ipv6-como-medio-para-lleg= ar- / > http://pillku.com/article/redes-libres-redes-de-pares/ >=20 > [4] http://lg.beta.as6453.net/prefix_bgpmap/mtt/ipv4?q=3D138.255.88.1 > = https://blog.altermundi.net/article/altermundi-ya-es-un-sistema-autonomo/= >=20 > [5] http://docs.altermundi.net/LibreNet6/ >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia From nobody Tue Apr 12 09:01:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAFE12D115 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KUbRCI6KnLvU for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AD3112D1BD for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CDs2NH007106; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:55:07 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Nicol=E1s_Ech=E1niz'?=" , Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:55:13 +0200 Message-ID: <004a01d194c2$ef92da00$ceb88e00$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGUwhW+z+XD4GIuRDeVObweLllUBw== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Nicolas review, question #4: Routing protocols X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:01:22 -0000 Hi, Nicol=E1s, >=20 > # Section 7.1.2.2 > When refering to bmx6, the wording: " this is an advanced version of = the BATMAN > protocol" is confusing as the other popular BATMAN derivative is = called batman- > advanced. >=20 > Maybe this section could have more extensive information as it = actually represents > the core of much development in the Community Network movement. This would be the new version of this section: Please feel free to suggest your improvements to the text. 7.1.2. Routing protocols As stated in previous sections, Alternative Networks are composed of possibly different layer 2 devices, resulting in a mesh of nodes. Connection between different nodes is not guaranteed and the link stability can vary strongly over time. To tackle this, some Alternative Networks use mesh network routing protocols while other networks use more traditional routing protocols. Some networks operate multiple routing protocols in parallel. For example, they may use a mesh protocol inside different islands and rely on traditional routing protocols to connect these islands. 7.1.2.1. Traditional routing protocols The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as defined by [RFC4271] is used by a number of Community Networks, because of its well-studied behavior and scalability. For similar reasons, smaller networks opt to run the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol, as defined by [RFC2328]. 7.1.2.2. Mesh routing protocols A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]. The pro-active link state routing protocol is a good match with Alternative Networks because it has good performance in mesh networks where nodes have multiple interfaces. The Better Approach To Mobile Adhoc Networking (BATMAN) [Abolhasan] protocol was developed by members of the Freifunk community. The protocol handles all routing at layer 2, creating one bridged network. Parallel to BGP, some networks also run the BatMan-eXperimental (BMX6) protocol [Neumann_a]. This is an evolved version of the BATMAN protocol which is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the social structure of Alternative Networks. In [Neumann_b] a study of three proactive mesh routing protocols is presented, in terms of scalability, performance, and stability. Thanks, Jose=20 From nobody Tue Apr 12 09:09:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72FE412D180 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=berkeley-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5T1pxFmxMzDD for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55A9612D0AE for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id j11so32092390lfb.1 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=berkeley-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=wxPU0Vj8IfztgtqEHIl8SxYtp+WTtU9Gqjc4z+iwE5U=; b=sXdkD/L0XWoHrGPckOd/+W3k3kHBlqRoEFl6ZpZLEoiIBKxocp4TzQrOJGmlrm4GJy 5KMQODxgeJa5Nh27169UY3S6HZK4V1N+fpCx6nLYy2dpC9T1DgQOUELeiG1WqoyLc5mZ F5Xt9/uvS4fKJSggPf2/oq8eEcyjpb6jyuX6TB5HKmFqZPIv36Q9SFDinhZnMG8B5V9/ 6WStnwh1twMQWBudONGXaMCa7Sau2vf1sqdcoYbNpni9fuVUWnQn/PGGvWR8Kxce3OVf Cz2qZWwB4v8mpCcY2nWOyhOAo5J1svkOhE9NpZ1/ww2AZoZMG7LfL3Qr5ce2uDfNOhFj tR7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=wxPU0Vj8IfztgtqEHIl8SxYtp+WTtU9Gqjc4z+iwE5U=; b=e46z2aovyXBlm5cHpIiRlhloFMJLRDC2VN0iK3LX+vv3DCYm9jwjxQKNmXNKo32z9H syckLzNGugueLxJYvXXtQbcT5+GkSUPMOqbgf4dD1v1AgfyMrfTSqZ2E7Yve9N9+AIg4 ka7r+ebVknXWWq0zOWnsF1t28v4e4dC+VpaRtLpZji85xy38typ7cm6KPNvBr35Q45qp FLYXF2jI5R6SPNFBFiNmTsnfD2ci4ksjgVbGZj1D8W+LBFh9j3gPAHHyeLJDgv7zmAMy rpg66GziI6ziLMu4DBMWTxVMYHaYfnprFeGLaQWQtEBEBN1uzow+Tcyo77S8RhnP6+V2 wyzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FU7SUt0Qc6F/NUw6JX0rVOSttyIlZY70FNRFJZGFbGEAR/RcAkOXbQeRnOQgSMU73eHgiircX4THFhqi2t2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.82.65 with SMTP id g62mr1812150lfb.142.1460477341158; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.42.197 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:01 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Eric A. BREWER" To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141a1e21f66e605304be1cd Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Mitar Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:09:05 -0000 --001a1141a1e21f66e605304be1cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree that there are rural only networks. The use some backhaul that might go to an urban area (if not satellite), but are really separate things. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > > Hi, > > > Section 4.5, typical scenarios: > > > > I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any > network > I know of > > outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Community > networks > > maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow and > spread > > over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries. > > In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for rural > areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the future a lot > of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural deployments exist, > so for me the classification makes sense. > > Thanks! > > Jose > > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > --001a1141a1e21f66e605304be1cd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree that there are rural only networks.=C2=A0 The use = some backhaul that might go to an urban area (if not satellite), but are re= ally separate things.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana &= lt;jsaldana@unizar.= es> wrote:

Hi,

> Section 4.5, typical scenarios:
>
> I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any net= work
I know of
> outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Communit= y
networks
> maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow a= nd
spread
> over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries.
In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for rural<= br> areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the future a lot=
of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural deployments exist,<= br> so for me the classification makes sense.

Thanks!

Jose


_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

--001a1141a1e21f66e605304be1cd-- From nobody Tue Apr 12 09:59:45 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34ED712D610 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.196 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vhMo23AZjEc7 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from buckwheat.cc.columbia.edu (buckwheat.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.72.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 542D712D613 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hazelnut (hazelnut.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.213.250]) by buckwheat.cc.columbia.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3CGv94k014509 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:59:41 -0400 Received: from hazelnut (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hazelnut (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE1E6D for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rambutan.cc.columbia.edu (rambutan.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.5]) by hazelnut (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED41F80 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f169.google.com (mail-yw0-f169.google.com [209.85.161.169]) by rambutan.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id u3CGxeI4016135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id d68so32601399ywe.1 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dw5MPElhPMe5xKl/qWRpFhyr7jEYsyO2NgHaBfU1UWA=; b=dNxgPDk7pIzcAyXrRQ7W0weWwjNB3DQHwooGx4WTWZhT3q4J7GtON7e9QFaBj04bIX udmUSnLTF+4206EVDzbOoyIVzgL8d46bsGolwh0IL73pfSo8WFIm6dFDl8/6gYt1un99 icdreXf0gpYq5JnN+YOT4YzWp5HWMHdFOqqvhTfMxChoU1+GF1nQY5vP630n6Rzowg5w xfY94DQByCP+giVFA+TD83OxQ1tMA5YNcEAmdhGYLTgda0Oiddo49QUKsWj4qBdokswf CEgDeMsBhsdbMCftTKxSLFDvfFm+hEbNf3UbfJ+JGmyat27IvFt9ouTBqC4PXJOk0Vog BURg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUnIr8TJeZoib0Tr9qf/RsAz9EDJGqIrGljsXKucgl5u12t1VUcWT9+5hgDaSvgg3AMW/ICMbnGj1An1Jehce7xdGAb4+778UVsXtGKphmznXgeU3dKhOcf8d/GBGG6ihm25h11M4w= X-Received: by 10.37.71.130 with SMTP id u124mr2243132yba.93.1460480380364; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.37.71.130 with SMTP id u124mr2243121yba.93.1460480380112; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.230.139 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> From: Henning Schulzrinne Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:20 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Eric A. BREWER" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11423c2c4244fd05304c96fa X-No-Spam-Score: Local X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.5 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Mitar , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:59:44 -0000 --001a11423c2c4244fd05304c96fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is rumored to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes along rural streets in West Virginia.) One distinction is the average (or median) distance between network end points. Henning On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Eric A. BREWER wrote: > I agree that there are rural only networks. The use some backhaul that > might go to an urban area (if not satellite), but are really separate > things. > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> > Section 4.5, typical scenarios: >> > >> > I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any >> network >> I know of >> > outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Community >> networks >> > maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow and >> spread >> > over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries. >> >> In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for rural >> areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the future a >> lot >> of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural deployments exist, >> so for me the classification makes sense. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Jose >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gaia mailing list >> gaia@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >> > > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > --001a11423c2c4244fd05304c96fa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the= US government is rumored to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspec= tive, it's very different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings,= separated by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences= . (In the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Ok= lahoma or homes along rural streets in West Virginia.)

O= ne distinction is the average (or median) distance between network end poin= ts.

Henning

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Eric A.= BREWER <brewer@berkeley.edu> wrote:
I agree that there are rural only networks.= =C2=A0 The use some backhaul that might go to an urban area (if not satelli= te), but are really separate things.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana <j= saldana@unizar.es> wrote:
<= br> Hi,

> Section 4.5, typical scenarios:
>
> I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any net= work
I know of
> outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Communit= y
networks
> maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow a= nd
spread
> over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries.
In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for rural<= br> areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the future a lot=
of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural deployments exist,<= br> so for me the classification makes sense.

Thanks!

Jose


_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia


_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia


--001a11423c2c4244fd05304c96fa-- From nobody Tue Apr 12 13:29:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC5812B039 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:29:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y4A5X4h-dQlm for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0DC412D0EF for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id j11so41632386lfb.1 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:29:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=TcUk4v/+88Tc/uVh9rNhVcEOfGOFBvMCZNmE/tsBEzA=; b=kLJv/bdvRXhWCC7e1Lk317ZYJlAsyqB2CPegqpROSmNobkbFM5RAAOB4wb6xtHtqau B0cWO0Ay87ulLcl6B6QoZNJGr7V2Kegb9xcDjWlVyKmKMrVcWvJk0ihmyx1PvKwMqvoW EVAZWsHwbuIMZIQCTjorbICcVoIAHfENyCT5iYoXSmgzrZBvWjHMbFqPnS2rXPGCdwPB MhPtmR8jq2rdV5wW0AjXuPx2ZjeTtul9BQ89H/0bc7j5Sf7bmaHZJtYNuFYpDp592Hn8 UKjh1/cSoDFyfYZA7j5zD1NODvKIsiRNz0wjMbxFHE69jOkBTg6lXXkaCeIkkW8CUWZ2 kdMQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from :to; bh=TcUk4v/+88Tc/uVh9rNhVcEOfGOFBvMCZNmE/tsBEzA=; b=jjtTkoxOH5sOK/UAI3cFQtnN+HJ3bf6nw9CQBEh0bxh7rkPbXAkU0f52FFSx4bR6Iq 4seCjAm6YBpdnwFYuDKjCSg426rXWQee7wX1VuQr7UWZBXllsbd74uKNoaz/qYqEnDL8 LqE1howptjEXU27mEbPIhNCXkvAT8Jo7SAtA1xEPwUoBKUXKXoUm3B3Ay1iRni+PLgzF iMVo5alpDsfU7ws9n30J8EudG4KyFJrchmgQUzh+GXYVxIyp2OtldJnMAB4z56DKqOie uvB1C+MznHYN57FAeUMxEDdh9LjGj7f7TVTjZaFid+KA7d0BGL3Mtajv3Rd2bs9mlzxC SNUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV6pFB6oT75hBEXQtLskM8+FDvt9Ak96+ZXzG6Lry1UKq+J58b2MqpOuB6Fh00TVTJUn/l+wEcQcu7hLw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.160.85 with SMTP id j82mr2345704lfe.87.1460492944016; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:29:03 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yEZLcE6zmwdMzA32x37t4J1gOzU Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: gaia Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114103b6200e2905304f8358 Archived-At: Subject: [gaia] The Internet Society Fellowship to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Programme X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:29:08 -0000 --001a114103b6200e2905304f8358 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Got this useful info from Jane Coffin - fellowships to attend the IETF in Berlin - there are specific criteria/requirements but a great way of funding your travel to the IETF - http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/ietf-and-ois-programmes/internet-society-fellowship -- Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a114103b6200e2905304f8358 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Got this useful info from Jane Coffin - fellowships to att= end the IETF in Berlin - there are specific criteria/requirements but a gre= at way of funding your travel to the IETF -=C2=A0

http://www.int= ernetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/ietf-and-oi= s-programmes/internet-society-fellowship

--
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Personal: <= a href=3D"http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.cl= .cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d
--001a114103b6200e2905304f8358-- From nobody Tue Apr 12 23:37:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697FA12DA8F for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:37:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.919 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SNgHBud9Pxg2 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pv35p12im-ztdg05041101.me.com (pv35p12im-ztdg05041101.me.com [17.133.186.214]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4E1112DA72 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.105] (rtr106.davenet.cz [89.235.9.12]) by pv35p12im-ztdg05041101.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.36.0 64bit (built Sep 8 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <0O5K006J37PWRT30@pv35p12im-ztdg05041101.me.com> for gaia@irtf.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:37:13 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-04-13_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1510270003 definitions=main-1604130096 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D9DD9A6C-2FE8-4C48-A871-B3E01B6EE5D0" MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Jim Forster In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:37:07 +0200 Message-id: References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> To: Henning Schulzrinne X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: gaia , "Eric A. BREWER" , Mitar , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:37:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D9DD9A6C-2FE8-4C48-A871-B3E01B6EE5D0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 (Perhaps covered already in the draft=E2=80=A6) Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely = implies a poorer economic situation (average income per capita) than = metro areas in the same country, and frequently reduced general = infrastructure (roads, water systems, grid power) than the metro areas. = I think one of the drivers for migration to cities in developing = counties is somewhat better infrastructure in cities than in the rural = areas. > On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne = wrote: >=20 > Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is = rumored to have 50 definitions. =46rom a networking perspective, it's = very different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated = by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In = the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or = Oklahoma or homes along rural streets in West Virginia.) >=20 > One distinction is the average (or median) distance between network = end points. >=20 --Apple-Mail=_D9DD9A6C-2FE8-4C48-A871-B3E01B6EE5D0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
(Perhaps covered already in the = draft=E2=80=A6)

Sometimes, = especially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies a poorer = economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas in the = same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads, = water systems, grid power) than the metro areas.  I think one of = the drivers for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat = better infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas.


On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, = Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

Defining "rural" is = surprisingly difficult - the US government is rumored to have 50 = definitions. =46rom a networking perspective, it's very different = whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or = villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think = Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes = along rural streets in West Virginia.)

One distinction is the = average (or median) distance between network end points.


= --Apple-Mail=_D9DD9A6C-2FE8-4C48-A871-B3E01B6EE5D0-- From nobody Wed Apr 13 01:33:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF4312D0A9 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:33:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2xsfk2M_qx-p for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE5012DDB7 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3D8XTiK016977; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:33:29 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:33:34 +0200 Message-ID: <010001d1955f$2ad48ea0$807dabe0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVXYrZSaDmumrOTkmNDELo8Xsa+g== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #10 Traffic management X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:33:38 -0000 Hi, > Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources > > It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be some special > prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs. > But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes will be much > further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just this distance already > influences that the users of open network are prioritized less (they have higher > packet loss, lower bitrate, which is also good to limit the lowest allowed bitrate). I don't know if we should talk about this effect in the draft. I have just slightly modified the text (see below). > > In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself on different > frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh networks ran everything > (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs on the same channel, but with 5 > GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band devices this is often separated now. I think this is interesting. Do you have any reference or example to support this statement? This is the current version of the section: 7.2.1. Traffic Management when sharing network resources When network resources are shared (as e.g. in the networks explained in Section 5.4), special care has to be taken with the management of the traffic at upper layers. From a crowdshared perspective, and considering just regular TCP connections during the critical sharing time, the Access Point offering the service is likely to be the bottleneck of the connection. This is the main concern of sharers, having several implications. In some cases, an adequate Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism that implements a Lower-than-best-effort (LBE) [RFC6297] policy for the user is used to protect the sharer. Achieving LBE behavior requires the appropriate tuning of the well known mechanisms such as Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168], or Random Early Detection (RED) [RFC2309], or other more recent AQM mechanisms such as Controlled Delay (CoDel) and [I-D.ietf-aqm-codel] PIE (Proportional Integral controller Enhanced) [I-D.ietf-aqm-pie] that aid low latency. Best regards, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 01:55:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0D912E38B for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s1HTbmKRySEE for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0043812E390 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3D8t8mS018481; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:55:08 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" , "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Nicol=E1s_Ech=E1niz'?=" Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:55:13 +0200 Message-ID: <010401d19562$31490e20$93db2a60$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVX3s+yzk8nlEiQ5m39ystQAvBoQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #9: Services provided X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:55:58 -0000 Hi, > Section 7.3., services provided > > What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the Internet and > networks in general? This looks pretty useless section which would not inform > anyone reading this draft of anything about alternative networks. > > If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized services > developed just for community/alternative networks: > > - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN > - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org > - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ > - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms > - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries > - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices > - Community radio/TV stations > > What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet access. For > example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless communities which made > networks in villages just to be able to play games. Do you have any reference/example? > > Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies > > "Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in many Alternative > Networks due to bandwidth limitations." > > That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles which are > important in many other alternative networks. So the question how informative this > sentence is, because for some maybe this is true, for some it is not, and some > probably are build just around this. Others probably address this with innovative > solutions like internal file servers. This other e-mail also suggested some improvements: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01191.html This is the improved version of the section. Feel free to say whatever you want. 7.3. Services provided This section provides an overview of the services provided by the network. Many Alternative Networks can be considered Autonomous Systems, being (or aspiring to be) a part of the Internet. The services provided can include, but are not limited to: o Web browsing. o e-mail. o Remote desktop (e.g. using my home computer and my Internet connection when I am away). o FTP file sharing (e.g. distribution of software and media). o VoIP (e.g. with SIP). o P2P file sharing. o Public video cameras. o DNS. o Online games servers. o Jabber instant messaging. o Weather stations. o Network monitoring. o Videoconferencing / streaming. o Radio streaming. o Message / Bulletin board. Due to bandwidth limitations, some services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) may not be allowed in some Alternative Networks. In some of these cases, a number of federated proxies provide web browsing service for the users. Some specialized services have been especifically developed for Alternative Networks: o Inter-network peering/VPNs (e.g. https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC- VPN). o Local wikis (e.g. https://localwiki.org). o Community oriented portals (e.g. http://tidepools.co/). o Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platform.s o VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries. o Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices. o Community radio/TV stations. 7.3.1. Use of VPNs Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with Internet access. 7.3.2. Other facilities Other facilities, as NTP or IRC servers may also be present in Alternative Networks. Best regards, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 01:59:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453B212D12D for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:59:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cl02ZtrFYu2o for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x242.google.com (mail-io0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEA7412D109 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x242.google.com with SMTP id g185so5925931ioa.0 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=VAE+A3ZSUnkO9Iue10CwMWG0Z2Z3CIPQnnSeVyHCr2A=; b=KdBY3NSuhpr3PR+TVkYAW833HrVtWmgdAtXiHBQHYoPpjcYbaVTHzmnsGhpGDi9yGh 7xBxHI5v+6ssrz2yuLFwfHgGF4boZqaa6l2mzzgsNMtjOxyruywyFODIgZtn7gxH6cPQ iFBzTg8Hch0nBClwf823OY5GrkyCaR8uQeoTHfzQD3/s+2SJEwdNtZz0r+YLgO3ouUxw ydYlWus5dpYXxCnIhs8HXiBgW2ApuP/QtRfrX26QrmGaLQKjMulp9H+k0kDfSeRib5E5 ZBmCgKKNm1oSxE1ki+/8Pwdxqs2K+tzXGn6kxl0+74K2uNW81dhhesxu8l96zGPTJUr8 aMpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=VAE+A3ZSUnkO9Iue10CwMWG0Z2Z3CIPQnnSeVyHCr2A=; b=Vj0dR9ifFoqa77OZteHFchKUsZMHaTks5v3PFvPD0C/Zcur6wR/wQFPTVgG9lh06fs wrDvgQ4PnoHmbRz+3ROrboyMe2tEwj+h7DMswSOgLfKZ+VAc+LY73y3blgfpTp8Hc6/w EeppAMB3u0CQlOzLru8ViIht4uxLhLrZpVOU48h29XHa42akLubUegpTETIQRIPKXiqD YOQl9xkgAgNHnodw9dC12Zc9gV271K+NqC+lHKuXAgjAoyLjJSy7Bne+/sfodmz4bj1N 3dhT3Vhr2WwJpyGqwSdXReYwb3Czc1scUBB436mFTnF3FnV5ChEwtzS8WDUEadg4PECP +jgA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW/wOzeWaPEZy5RUhM/CcLAhTQS4wK3d53aty5f+LVNXO+hXhD230ZnQS2/BLwTWM6Ei/O6QI0ngEINfw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.173.69 with SMTP id w66mr9612486ioe.182.1460537964177; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <005601d194c4$c7894ce0$569be6a0$@unizar.es> References: <005601d194c4$c7894ce0$569be6a0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:59:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #1: Motivations X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:59:27 -0000 Hi! This sounds great! Mitar On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > Hi, > >> Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From our > network and >> from my experience talking to other community networks, I would claim that > many >> share also much more altruistic motivations. For example, our whole > network is >> build around principle that some of us have abundance of Internet > connectivity at >> home (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us > will >> share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course there are > other >> motivations why people participate, and everyone has a different mix of > those >> motivations, but I definitely think that the list should be extended to > include: >> >> - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism >> - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, > anti-censorship, >> decentralization to minimize control, showing that alternative is > possible) >> - building a new type of commons >> - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a say > in >> operations >> - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the community > (eg. >> http://tidepools.co/) >> - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other > extreme situations >> - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, > empowering >> others to take their Internet connectivity into their own hands >> >> An example of another network describing itself with much more of what I > am >> writing than what is currently on the list: >> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh >> >> All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I remembered > without >> much thinking) for many community networks. I do not think the list in > section 4.2 >> can ever be comprehensive, but I was really taken aback from its > economy-centric >> bias at the moment. Most community networks do not operate on that level. > It is of >> course present, but there are some other primary motivations why people > are doing >> it. > > This would be the new version of this subsection. Feel free to send your > comments. > > 4.2. Goals and motivation > > Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the > underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and usage > hurdles: > > o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end > user, or both). > > o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional > carrier-based financing). > > o Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network > administration). > > o Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimentation and > teaching. > > o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in > general; relevance, etc.) > > o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities). > > o Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic > reasons. > > o Becoming an active participant in the deployment and management of > a real and operational network. > > o Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality > guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, > etc. > > o Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and > other extreme situations. > > Best regards, > > Jose > -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:00:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5620D12E3BA for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:00:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yInfATBYCywo for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B8312D5C7 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3D90VYB027900; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:00:31 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" , "'gaia'" Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:00:36 +0200 Message-ID: <010801d19562$f1e9cca0$d5bd65e0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVYnGmvof2HVcuQpSkTlaXkHwI6g== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #11: Final questions X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:00:40 -0000 Hi, > At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs > (https://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To me is unclear. According to https://diyisp.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=about : The DIY ISP initiative, short for Do-It-Yourself Internet Service Provider, is a loose federation of small-scale ISPs from around the world. Its main goals are: *facilitating communication between the various local ISP initiatives, providing technical and legal documentation, and helping the creation of new initiatives.* I think this is not an Alternative Network, but an initiative to promote / help / merge other ones. Do you agree? > > Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft: > > https://rhizomatica.org/ > http://www.servalproject.org/ > http://villagetelco.org/ > Where would you add them in the draft? Thanks, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:10:46 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E36A12D674 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:10:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EGbVAKBlbjhv for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x243.google.com (mail-io0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C72812D65D for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x243.google.com with SMTP id z133so5877170iod.1 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:10:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=JllmWV4aqdJXgwP2yh8Pq/EhTFkjYjYBg5h/Jc6bZiM=; b=OH0eIe1dNBdhvU6wSL2W/8xoOTncBzEGSMy5/EMlSDogk+yc+et29euR0JFxJEytoh NEprhGZtecQBOOsiqZ737ecDwG3gWcDFoNCwdLSsXr81hkD3HuB5TUp1PdOUlUHaMWYN KMz5gmgUVEC/YJ6QKOidNEKhgkdxCglnlVmrKWXUA728xxtAfnxjLTG9RYtu5sp1kv6c 8q38UacJGzRUKS+YVoDh1Iu72lembgCPn+EZDY0ANwRdYDxza0Gr6EJpVRZRaiLFXxfU t5ABl1hh0+/q7s2zF8DmBhLZT80TpP79lyds0PmgZ/dAjJhIMHOgNnOywOvtNUH9tBDi B8+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=JllmWV4aqdJXgwP2yh8Pq/EhTFkjYjYBg5h/Jc6bZiM=; b=esyYr3qG5jpqVbf3ZiT5Xt0MU98yQ+8wgZqPQ2ZHM+v3f0gMXjsPRwfLrK26GG9jS1 5dnExGXVXioTy9moAAXF2qy+rQYloPtBWvNzWMucADdUfNlaHbnSCX4a+lNzamfN3rVD wqVlWVPU4Hql2wVD8OYSYpjpOnItZVAxsLb8qXuhGr1dMooNDVDbp9ugDJB5jM2rnFc3 N2ZgYS07zY+blx9KL6DarTSr2S+9UXvySxuHg+GpzC+v3N2TgkdW2PUYOhNbKlcrar0k vrvdCt20tcycVAiCX4HXSN1tRZwoa10L4llzJBy7l16JrQv54PZwimvXHRWFW/h+tiCY tkFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXlmVDhMlSgPwHKEmMx/NeYAulGfM0R9asefPW0VMGPsLAuz2UViYy7+MR869YjbTo1d+y6tBPmgP85kw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.134.8 with SMTP id i8mr8465568iod.130.1460538635655; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:10:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <005601d194c4$c7894ce0$569be6a0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:10:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #1: Motivations X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:10:41 -0000 Hi! Maybe this one can be expanded to include commons: - Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, building of commons, etc. Maybe one more can be added: - Preferring alternative ownership model (co-owning, co-operating) of the networking infrastructure. For the second part, there is a whole movement these days about this, trying to define it for services as well, not just infrastructure: http://p2pfoundation.net/Platform_Cooperativism Mitar On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > This sounds great! > > > Mitar > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From our >> network and >>> from my experience talking to other community networks, I would claim that >> many >>> share also much more altruistic motivations. For example, our whole >> network is >>> build around principle that some of us have abundance of Internet >> connectivity at >>> home (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us >> will >>> share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course there are >> other >>> motivations why people participate, and everyone has a different mix of >> those >>> motivations, but I definitely think that the list should be extended to >> include: >>> >>> - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism >>> - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees, >> anti-censorship, >>> decentralization to minimize control, showing that alternative is >> possible) >>> - building a new type of commons >>> - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a say >> in >>> operations >>> - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the community >> (eg. >>> http://tidepools.co/) >>> - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other >> extreme situations >>> - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others, >> empowering >>> others to take their Internet connectivity into their own hands >>> >>> An example of another network describing itself with much more of what I >> am >>> writing than what is currently on the list: >>> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh >>> >>> All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I remembered >> without >>> much thinking) for many community networks. I do not think the list in >> section 4.2 >>> can ever be comprehensive, but I was really taken aback from its >> economy-centric >>> bias at the moment. Most community networks do not operate on that level. >> It is of >>> course present, but there are some other primary motivations why people >> are doing >>> it. >> >> This would be the new version of this subsection. Feel free to send your >> comments. >> >> 4.2. Goals and motivation >> >> Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the >> underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and usage >> hurdles: >> >> o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end >> user, or both). >> >> o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional >> carrier-based financing). >> >> o Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network >> administration). >> >> o Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimentation and >> teaching. >> >> o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in >> general; relevance, etc.) >> >> o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities). >> >> o Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic >> reasons. >> >> o Becoming an active participant in the deployment and management of >> a real and operational network. >> >> o Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality >> guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, >> etc. >> >> o Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and >> other extreme situations. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jose >> > > > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:23:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D24812DB46 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:23:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OkKMhjkIStFQ for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D10712DB12 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3D9NGkm005383; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:23:16 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Vesna Manojlovic'" , Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:23:21 +0200 Message-ID: <013601d19566$1f48c2c0$5dda4840$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVZAMf3GQUpbi/SAaJAQLduoSRIQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #1 content of the draft and other possible content X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:23:26 -0000 > My comments are of three kinds: > a) content of the current draft > b) suggestions about possible other content > c) editorial >=20 > I give my detailed comments in-line, while summarizing main points = here: >=20 > a.1. rename the "commercial model/promoter" (4.1) as "ownership" There is a question here: In Community Networks, everybody usually keeps = the ownership of what he/she has contributed. So using "ownership" in = this case would not be adequate, IMHO. > a.2. define Alternative Networks by themselves (1.2) (not just as the = "opposite" from > "mainstream") According to your suggestion, we have modified section 1.2 1.2. Alternative Networks The term "Alternative Network" proposed in this document refers to the networks that do not share the characteristics of "mainstream network deployments". These are some of their characteristics: o Relatively small scale (i.e. not spanning entire regions). o Administration may not follow a centralized approach. o They may require a reduced investment in infrastructure, which may be shared by the users, commercial and non-commercial entities. o Users in alternative networks may participate in the network design, deployment, operation and maintenance. >=20 > b) > - I am missing a final section: conclusions, recommendations, summary Although this would be required in a research paper, we don't see the = need for this in an IRTF draft. > - I love multidisciplinary approach, but please reflect this in the = references: > I would like to see more material from economists, social scientists, = human rights > and political activists, and philosophers; I will include some links, = and I will circulate > this draft to my network of contacts for their input IMHO, the draft has some of this content, but just what is needed to = express what the terms mean. We should keep it short, as this is an IRTF = draft, mainly about networking. > - please increase the diversity: among authors, acknowledged = supporters, examples > & references there are not many women nor people from "Global South"; = I will > provide some input as the initial help. Ok. >=20 > I hope you find mine comments helpful. >=20 > Regards, > Vesna >=20 Best regards, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:28:25 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8FB12DCBA for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:28:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KF0Diq4ZrOb for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B4E612DCB8 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3D9SE9Q013290; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:28:15 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Vesna Manojlovic'" , Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:28:19 +0200 Message-ID: <013801d19566$d18237f0$7486a7d0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVZm7GYlwygWpWQrOuQnHASc9cQw== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #2 Introduction X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:28:24 -0000 > Details: >=20 > > Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, characterization, > > technologies and architectures > > draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-04 > > > > Abstract > > > > This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative = Network > > Deployments" emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing > > Internet connectivity to people. They employ architectures and > > topologies different from those of mainstream networks, and rely = on > > alternative business >=20 > & ownership Se comment in the previous e-mail. >=20 > > models. >=20 > > The document also surveys the technologies deployed in these > > networks, and their differing architectural characteristics, > > including a set of definitions and shared properties. > > > > The classification considers models such as Community Networks, > > Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), networks owned by > > individuals but leased out to network operators who use them as a > > low-cost medium to reach the underserved population, and networks > > that provide connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the = users. >=20 > .. and gives recommendations about ### We are not giving recommendations in this draft. This is just a = taxonomy. We may build another future one with recommendations (see = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00916.html). >=20 >=20 > > 1. Introduction > > > > One of the aims of the Global Access to the Internet for All = (GAIA) > > IRTF research group is "to document and share deployment = experiences > > and research results to the wider community through scholarly > > publications, white papers, Informational and Experimental RFCs, > > etc." [GAIA]. In line with this objective, this document = proposes a > > classification of "Alternative Network Deployments". This term > > includes a set of network access models that have emerged in the = last > > decade with the aim of providing Internet connection, following > > topological, architectural and business models that differ from = the > > so-called "mainstream" ones >=20 > . >=20 > c) I would take out the following part of the sentence, since = "mainstream networks" > are defined in more detail further in the document. >=20 > > where a company deploys the > > infrastructure connecting the users, who pay a subscription fee = to be > > connected and make use of it. >=20 > (I would add this to 1.1.) >=20 > > Several initiatives throughout the world have built these large = scale > > networks, using predominantly wireless technologies (including = long > > distance) due to the reduced cost of using unlicensed spectrum. > > Wired technologies such as fiber are also used in some of these > > networks. >=20 > c) I think the following two paragraphs should be taken out, in order = to make the > document shorter; since it only repeats the listing of the types = further in the > document. >=20 > > The classification considers several types of alternate = deployments: > > Community Networks are self-organized networks wholly owned by = the > > community; networks acting as Wireless Internet Service Providers > > (WISPs); networks owned by individuals but leased out to network > > operators who use such networks as a low cost medium to reach the > > underserved population; and finally there are networks that = provide > > connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users. > > > > The emergence of these networks has been motivated by a variety = of > > factors such as the lack of wired and cellular infrastructures in > > rural/remote areas [Pietrosemoli]. In some cases, alternative > > networks may provide more localized communication services as = well as > > Internet backhaul support through peering agreements with = mainstream > > network operators. In other cases, they are built as a = complement or > > an alternative to commercial Internet access provided by = mainstream > > network operators. >=20 > IMHO, this is a matter of style. We have tried to address the comments = after the IRSG review, and we already modified this part. >=20 > On the other hand, I would like to add other motivators and goals of = the Alternative > Networks, such as > - increased freedoms of the participants in those networks, > - alternative approaches to ownership (commons and sharing as opposed = to > commercial ownership & exploitation), > - increases in the capacity for individuals to exercise their rights, = need for the > decentralized decisions making processes about network design, use, = growth... See this thread: = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01182.html >=20 > ... and I think contributors from other disciplines could contribute = to this part of the > document. >=20 > (see references I mentioned in Section 2) >=20 > For example, part of 3.0 could be moved here: >=20 > > civil society members [are] more active in the search for = alternatives > > to provide themselves with affordable access. > > Furthermore, Alternative Networks {could} contribute to other > > dimensions of the digital development like increased human capital = and > > the creation of content and services targeting the locality of each > > network. >=20 > >=20 > > The present document is intended to provide a broad overview of > > initiatives, technologies and approaches employed in these = networks, > > including some real examples. References describing each kind of > > network are also provided. >=20 > "Document concludes with... >=20 > #### >=20 > > 1.1. Mainstream networks >=20 > I suggest to add more here - specially about ownership: >=20 > (from the intro) >=20 > "> a company deploys the infrastructure connecting the users, > > who pay a subscription fee to be connected and make use of it. >=20 > From 5.1.: >=20 > > (mainstream Internet Service Providers base their business on the >=20 > ownership and exploitation and >=20 > > control of the infrastructure). >=20 > From 5.3.: >=20 > > In conventional networks, the operator usually owns the >=20 > s/conventional/mainstream >=20 > > telecommunications infrastructure required for the service, or > > sometimes rents infrastructure to/from other companies. >=20 > > In this document we will use the term "mainstream networks" to = denote > > those networks sharing these characteristics: > > > > o Regarding scale, they are usually large networks spanning = entire > > regions. > > > > o Top-down control of the network and centralized approach. >=20 > ... to administration and governance >=20 > > > > o They require a substantial investment in infrastructure. > > > > o Users in mainstream networks do not participate in the network > > design, deployment, operation and maintenance. >=20 > > 1.2. Alternative Networks > > > > The term "Alternative Network" proposed in this document refers = to > > the networks that do not share the characteristics of "mainstream > > network deployments". >=20 > I strongly recommend to spell out HERE the characteristics of = Alternative Networks. > This document could become a standard for the definition of = Alternative Networks, > and this chapter could be that summary! >=20 > Suggestions: >=20 > + Goals for building Alternative Networks are usually: empowering the > + community > of participants and users, increasing access to connectivity, = increasing digital > literacy and enhancing and extending digital human rights >=20 > + Ownership: Alternative Networks are usually owned by the community, = or > + shared > between non-commercial and commercial entities >=20 > + Regarding scale, they (Alternative Networks) are mostly spanning > + smaller > areas >=20 > + Administration is non-centralized, i.e. the network is managed > + following a > distributed approach, in which a whole community may participate >=20 > + Alternative Networks are usually self-managed and self-sustained = (from 3.2.): > users participate in the network design, deployment, operation and = maintenance. Done. Thanks for the suggestion 1.2. Alternative Networks The term "Alternative Network" proposed in this document refers to the networks that do not share the characteristics of "mainstream network deployments". These are some of their characteristics: o Relatively small scale (i.e. not spanning entire regions). o Administration may not follow a centralized approach. o They may require a reduced investment in infrastructure, which may be shared by the users, commercial and non-commercial entities. o Users in alternative networks may participate in the network design, deployment, operation and maintenance. Thanks, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:34:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767C812D5CD for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:34:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RfwMTgUFIsu3 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7972012D815 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3D9Y5fJ018794; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Vesna Manojlovic'" , Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:34:10 +0200 Message-ID: <014101d19567$a2968a80$e7c39f80$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVZuedqiGdL3YXRhKhmzyCop4fUg== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #3: Section 2 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:34:14 -0000 Hi, > > 2. Terms used in this document > > > > This document follows a multidisciplinary approach, considering = the > > multidisciplinary nature of the Internet and the problems being > > addressed. Therefore, some concepts used in fields and = disciplines > > different from networking are being used. >=20 > As I said, I love multidisciplinary approach, but please reflect this = in the > references: I would like to see more material from economists, social = scientists, > human rights and political activists, and philosophers: >=20 > Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of = Institutions for > Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN > 9780521405997. >=20 > Eisler, Riane (2007). The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring = Economics. > San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2007. ISBN 978-1-57675-388-0 >=20 > Primavera De Filippi (2015). Wireless Community Networks: Towards a = Public > Policy for the Network Commons, > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3D2725434 >=20 > EXPANDING THE INTERNET COMMONS: THE SUBVERSIVE POTENTIAL OF > WIRELESS COMMUNITY NETWORKS, by Primavera De Filippi[1] and F=C3=A9lix > Tr=C3=A9guer[2] = http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-6-disruption-and-the-law/peer- > = reviewed-articles/expanding-the-internet-commons-the-subversive-potential= -of- > wireless-community-networks/ >=20 > (I will look for more references later) I think we just need references to define the terms used in the = document. This is not the main aim of it. >=20 > > This subsection summarizes > > these terms, and the meaning being attributed to them. > > > > o "Global north" and "global south": > ... > > o The "Digital Divide". > ... > > referred as the "Digital Divide" [Norris]. >=20 > Is it possible to use newer reference here? Please suggest. >=20 > > o Rural zone. > ... >=20 > > o Urban zone. > ... >=20 > > > > o Demand: In economics, it describes a consumer's desire and > > willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service. >=20 > Uh, that's a very traditional or neo-liberal economics! :( >=20 > I would hope that, at least in the document about Alternative = Networks, "demand" > would be possible to define in alternative ways too, and not only to = "pay a price"?! >=20 > See: Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of = Institutions > for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. > ISBN 9780521405997. >=20 I am not an expert on this. This is more or less what Wikipedia says = (i.e. what people may understand by the term). If you want to suggest = other wording, feel free to do that. > > o Provision is the act of making an asset available for sale. >=20 > why "for sale"? The same comment as above -- in alternative economies, = there are > other mechanisms -- sometimes it's not "for sale", it is for = "contribution" > or for "sharing" or ... >=20 > See: Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of = Institutions > for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. > ISBN 9780521405997. >=20 > > o The principles of Free, Open and Neutral Networks have also = been > > summarized (see https://guifi.net/en/FONNC) this way: >=20 > I love that these definitions were included, but I miss the mention of = them further (or > earlier) in the document. >=20 Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:37:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A9712D866 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:37:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7NDrxeC9CPzl for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x244.google.com (mail-io0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A444E12D815 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x244.google.com with SMTP id g185so6034842ioa.0 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:37:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=07bUhIS94fv5TsRqPYF3y5xo4lJFR2sDpViGu49BSmg=; b=Ghx4twRydwf1cFIenfkPLMq8A+XHVb1i/y6HfeHL0loKrIXHaeUEUcXj1n5oH0Q3t2 /qLpDJU9uuQJcuA3B4Vj70AyPpFVwG5ak+U0riLA+v7v6YLAlHMyoL0rALH/wSjFYg5Q 45lbzJubcKp+9PwRcza2lEgUhonXlLRkM+YeBnLKYSpD4MdYO8DUbDP0znuaahBv9aPr 0sJQT82PVy+DRWicJGu9E+8h1g7RhO5n1swWJ1caxIs8U8KFLZZbW5tkiRIlW/SgKDL3 gbDHyY0OOaAmO9yeLxMoO7/0e9hXZHks8OVORmS0xWoRu/pWcKuavP9BZNRH2qtwIDAr NB9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=07bUhIS94fv5TsRqPYF3y5xo4lJFR2sDpViGu49BSmg=; b=CjYtzba6U2mI2O554AJG5mLoWf3i3sKScpfv/kHWGoD/166lc9CWQs+OgyKqi5ucIr o1rem7bli+cwXmYXjaBn26ZNMUJFfNQANu3eSgTzoczK1mxBJoFhcyMa8t7zRW4qnMa4 BFZRUbnlH7DjHy7EUaefkrtBUwiAn244vwgXnP8bLUBhm7u0RNCr8wzKi29Xuh+f5WiU WHnBoZBUxbp2sICThz4kVjuaaSQq6sCO3GkJO0qCZoFppVSCABO20uXLsv1kas8dkq9G uCptHeq5hOxDJ/nXTgn8rUbs3yat3W3zRGaQEo/WFOyWI86nC4ficIM3Bgli5jB7Eram ECew== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUJTFQNdbBdagvWLy8e8XmjNLi+jSZBpsCMvsCaDMjnDGdk6KEd/zuzBPbeJuLM5ndndHfaUaVLsKFPmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.173.69 with SMTP id w66mr9785809ioe.182.1460540245961; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:37:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <007401d194ca$32320aa0$96961fe0$@unizar.es> References: <007401d194ca$32320aa0$96961fe0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:37:25 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #7: MAC protocols X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:37:28 -0000 Hi! > This would be the new version of this subsection: It sounds good. > You are right. We have only briefly summarized each of the most popular > standards, trying to focus on the characteristics that make them suitable > for Alternative networks: kilometers, requirements, standards especially > suited for ANs (e.g. WILD). We also talk about the maximum rates. In this case it might be interesting to also look into non-standard behavior done with such WiFi devices. For example, running them in ad-hoc mode even in N protocol (which by standard does not have that mode). Or using L2 routing protocol like Batman advanced to get roaming support in community networks. (For this latter thing I am not sure if it should be under this section or routing.) > So it is a matter of style if we remove some content from this section, I > think. I would not touch it. OK. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:42:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744DE12DECB for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:42:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7faFr5ruYi5t for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x241.google.com (mail-ig0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 715BD12DE93 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x241.google.com with SMTP id qu10so5809214igc.1 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:42:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3XGJRIRubNVa4uWcNk9IyPpbqUmwAv/LsUGYOqWkpRk=; b=Av9FdrMrtgVjWgC66npLfUQ6AYyJfk+NLZhKOP/Ih7Bu8oQiAkE2xUSnJriAOehBQn lg3aMlbzZrJoL+lSIjIzwtATzUe2R4xT0lom7x6UFkZiNT0HrwzEKBdJ0v88aQ/qIUaJ lALpJqEl0EDF4m0xd9MuotWTvkVmTmYHyqwH4bcHYTQklUOdxQKDzNN6JTUl4/fjngsH UBtw4DIoyUPY8/qbS1zUZ0yxGvrGwvcMKbHrcuZY5TnBNDWgcuHI1Q/ofvLbaGB5a1/a LgYQtBJE/MCDLH4WYz0AiAoD0MXiIsF/80nCKRePjMzS7j0BU5LTc0jh1BZLojC0B2AZ 7r4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3XGJRIRubNVa4uWcNk9IyPpbqUmwAv/LsUGYOqWkpRk=; b=aJtmRbvjFwMfhpCuwMf8MA58XvwuVzyG6Ur2IBapm5QQkdZQNK2Ej7kkRkm01BiLDV cAzU4sNE5BBYRTLqX8/XmKp95HwqBuxfqghjJihnkYXJfZjAXCmY650Ik5mHTQuKIWy3 uUI8QsHk6pp1XZsn/pfdqiSEv3H4V8ESxbQSFVgWJ3waEmWH10iQVsOpzAfTAouPKnQd z09TIDjNN2J8spWD+RdRmwfcdPRboZ2uxVXPdy2ST5GUvcePf1whCjW5fVtAwqK7lmc7 /IRs1MDr8vAiOwsGXDEYeeBiT12jewdQS1rShoQXfujKn/ACNVxXD2bXZ3bFiRC2utf8 Ga2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXJvayosNBspCVF5NQxnrnn4EchQlYc1m2Yiyhxu+OiR14mSNrrxfTyCMb++lkbhaRVPqNNlqnGAYYgRA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.160.39 with SMTP id xh7mr3378037igb.64.1460540553623; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:42:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <004a01d194c2$ef92da00$ceb88e00$@unizar.es> References: <004a01d194c2$ef92da00$ceb88e00$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:42:33 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: gaia , =?UTF-8?B?Tmljb2zDoXMgRWNow6FuaXo=?= Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Nicolas review, question #4: Routing protocols X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:42:36 -0000 Hi! I think the routing section in general needs some improvements. - so OLSR is not used as it is, it is used as special implementation with ETX and many other small hacks/improvements, as developed by http://olsr.org/ - now is in development and use already OLSR2 - Babel is missing - Batman by itself is not used as much (I might not even mention it anymore), but Batman-advanced (L2 protocol) is used, probably the main feature it supports is roaming inside a mesh network - BMX might started as fork of Batman and name comes from there, but I think these days nobody sees it anymore like that, so calling it Batman-experimental I think is misdirecting at this time So, the list of protocols to have, I would suggest: OLSR, OLSR2, Babel, B.A.T.M.A.N. Advanced, Bmx6. Also, not sure if people here are familiar, but this event is very interesting, where many community networks come together and compare various routing protocols and their configurations in a real common testbed: http://battlemesh.org/ If people are interested in this stuff, you should come this year. It will be in Porto, Portugal. Mitar On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > Hi, Nicol=C3=A1s, > >> >> # Section 7.1.2.2 >> When refering to bmx6, the wording: " this is an advanced version of the > BATMAN >> protocol" is confusing as the other popular BATMAN derivative is called > batman- >> advanced. >> >> Maybe this section could have more extensive information as it actually > represents >> the core of much development in the Community Network movement. > > This would be the new version of this section: > Please feel free to suggest your improvements to the text. > > 7.1.2. Routing protocols > > As stated in previous sections, Alternative Networks are composed of > possibly different layer 2 devices, resulting in a mesh of nodes. > Connection between different nodes is not guaranteed and the link > stability can vary strongly over time. To tackle this, some > Alternative Networks use mesh network routing protocols while other > networks use more traditional routing protocols. Some networks > operate multiple routing protocols in parallel. For example, they > may use a mesh protocol inside different islands and rely on > traditional routing protocols to connect these islands. > > 7.1.2.1. Traditional routing protocols > > The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as defined by [RFC4271] is used by > a number of Community Networks, because of its well-studied behavior > and scalability. > > For similar reasons, smaller networks opt to run the Open Shortest > Path First (OSPF) protocol, as defined by [RFC2328]. > > 7.1.2.2. Mesh routing protocols > > A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State > Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]. The pro-active link > state routing protocol is a good match with Alternative Networks > because it has good performance in mesh networks where nodes have > multiple interfaces. > > The Better Approach To Mobile Adhoc Networking (BATMAN) [Abolhasan] > protocol was developed by members of the Freifunk community. The > protocol handles all routing at layer 2, creating one bridged > network. > > Parallel to BGP, some networks also run the BatMan-eXperimental > (BMX6) protocol [Neumann_a]. This is an evolved version of the > BATMAN protocol which is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the > social structure of Alternative Networks. In [Neumann_b] a study of > three proactive mesh routing protocols is presented, in terms of > scalability, performance, and stability. > > > Thanks, > > Jose > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia --=20 http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:52:44 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1FD12E196 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:52:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GhPNPedlslwX for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B3612E19A for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3D9qZjZ012530; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:52:35 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Vesna Manojlovic'" , Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:52:38 +0200 Message-ID: <014a01d1956a$3706f590$a514e0b0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVaGndUiPQdoptRzajqsZ8mEs8aA== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #4. Scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:52:43 -0000 Hi, =20 > > 3. Scenarios where Alternative Networks are deployed >=20 > ... >=20 > > However, Alternative > > Networks are also present in some "global north" countries, being > > built as an alternative to commercial ones managed by mainstream > > network operators. >=20 > But why?! I think this deserves some extra explanation or references. A reference has been added. >=20 > However, this below could be moved to "goals" in the introduction or = chapter 4.2. : >=20 > > The consolidation of a number of mature Alternative Networks = (e.g. > > Community Networks) sets a precedent for civil society members to > > become more active in the search for alternatives to provide > > themselves with affordable access. Furthermore, Alternative = Networks > > could contribute to other dimensions of the digital development = like > > increased human capital and the creation of content and services > > targeting the locality of each network. >=20 > I think this is a matter of style. >=20 > > 3.1. Urban vs. Rural Areas >=20 > ... >=20 > > However, the proliferation of urban Community Networks, where > > scarcity of spectrum, scale, and heterogeneity of devices pose > > certain challenges to their stability and the services they aim = to > > provide, has fuelled the creation of low-cost, low-consumption, = low- > > complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices. These devices can > > simplify the deployment and maintenance of alternative > > infrastructures in rural areas. >=20 > I think the above sentence should be split in two: >=20 > > [There are] certain challenges to the[ir] stability and the services > > the[y] [Alternative Networks] aim to provide: > > scarcity of spectrum, scale, and heterogeneity of devices. >=20 > > However, the proliferation of urban Community Networks, has = fuelled > > the creation of low-cost, low-consumption, low- > > complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices. These devices can > > simplify the deployment and maintenance of alternative > > infrastructures in rural areas. This would be the new version of the paragraph. Thanks! Some of these factors challenge the stability of Alternative Networks and the services they provide: scarcity of spectrum, scale, and heterogeneity of devices. However, the proliferation of urban Community Networks has fuelled the creation of low-cost, low- consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices. These devices can simplify the deployment and maintenance of alternative infrastructures in rural areas. >=20 > I think some more references could be here; I have collected many = links here: > https://wiki.techinc.nl/index.php/MeshNet#In_the_media >=20 > > 3.2. Topology patterns followed by Alternative Networks > > > > Alternative Networks, considered self-managed and self-sustained, > > follow different topology patterns [Vega]. >=20 > ^ this should be in the 1.2 >=20 > > Generally, these networks > > grow spontaneously and organically, that is, the network grows > > without specific planning and deployment strategy and the routing > > core of the network tends to fit a power law distribution. >=20 > (reference?) It is explained in [Vega], which is already in the paragraph. >=20 > ... >=20 > > Regularly, rural areas in these networks are connected through = long- > > distance links (the so-called community mesh approach) which in = turn > > conveys the Internet connection to relevant organizations or > > institutions. In contrast, in urban areas, users tend to share = and > > require mobile access. Since these areas are also likely to be > > covered by commercial ISPs, the provision of wireless access by > > Virtual Operators like [Fon] >=20 > I suggest to use a more neutral reference, rather then one = implementation of one > commercial provider (there are others doing the same, why single-out = Fon?) If you provide other reference(s), we can add them. No problem at all. >=20 > > may constitute a way to extend the user > > capacity to the network. Other proposals like Virtual Public > > Networks [Sathiaseelan_a] can also extend the service. > > Thanks, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 02:55:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FE312DE6A for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:55:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t2fyI6ASdLe5 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD2DB12DCF3 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3D9tmji018689; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:55:48 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Vesna Manojlovic'" , Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:55:51 +0200 Message-ID: <014e01d1956a$a9f65460$fde2fd20$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVakfSG8pWa20kTMOBXQwBh5T2SQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #5. Section 4 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:55:54 -0000 Hi, > > 4. Classification criteria > > > > The classification of Alternative Network Deployments, presented = in > > this document, is based on the following criteria: > > > > 4.1. Commercial model / promoter >=20 > Please rename this section, and this concept, to "ownership". As said before, I do not agree with the change. Some people may promote = a network without owning it. >=20 > Owning and ownership are mentioned later on, but not here - why? >=20 > Also, some of these models are *not* _commercial_ at all. >=20 > > The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting >=20 > s/promoting/owning >=20 > > an Alternative Network can be: > > > > o A community of users. > > > > o A public stakeholder. > > > > o A private company. > > > > o Supporters of a crowdshared approach. > > > > o A community that already owns some infrastructure shares it = with > > an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes. > > > > o A research or academic entity. > > > > 4.2. Goals and motivation > > > > Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the > > underlying motivation for them, >=20 > (remove) > > e.g., addressing deployment and usage hurdles: > (/remove) >=20 > > o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the = end > > user, or both). > > > > o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the = traditional > > carrier-based financing). > > > > o Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or = network > > administration) > > > > o Leveraging expertise. > > > > o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in > > general; relevance, etc.) > > > > o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and = communities). > > > > o Network neutrality guarantees. >=20 > Add, from 3.0 >=20 > + providing themselves with affordable access. >=20 > + increase human capital and the creation of content and services > + targeting the > locality of each network. >=20 > & >=20 > & increased freedoms of the participants in those networks >=20 > & alternative approaches to ownership (commons and sharing) >=20 > & increases in the capacity for individuals to exercise Digital Human = Rights, >=20 > & fulfilling the needs for the decentralized decisions making = processes about > network design, use, growth... >=20 This is the current (improved) version: 4.2. Goals and motivation Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and usage hurdles: o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end user, or both). o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional carrier-based financing). o Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network administration). o Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimentation and teaching. o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in general; relevance, etc.) o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities). o Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic reasons. o Becoming an active participant in the deployment and management of a real and operational network. o Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, etc. o Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and other extreme situations. >=20 > > 4.4. Technologies employed >=20 > ... >=20 > How about LoRaWan technologies? (I am not a fan, but maybe it has to = be > mentioned) >=20 Can you provide an example of a real AN using it? Thanks, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 03:13:11 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C657112E461 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:13:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id txtLtLrnOXjh for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x244.google.com (mail-ig0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFA3412E45F for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x244.google.com with SMTP id fn8so5862768igb.2 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:13:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=QP7a4Qj3F0qRRnhsxZQbupcZGegPJ37EAy/Buscj+oM=; b=K4O5ciPMD0o2lFMs15ZSqRoJOGKD/hHXYiZ8nPdVPBj6Vobl1P+o1ZGxQtBBPsA7WB Stsi+aRtw4raYhXGWJ1zwKB5l3MXMPOEfJDOeNGyzXKPqx8VYs68NWhlscoCRAlCW+zK 9VYJp80zJOVhFGWrp91fV9BfXE2U4TFiMTPx/KE3kmTvB85nS6IyU1Y6S7WAWb3dM9B4 G2FA6cH9zScGBFeH9bcv6D5hzg0+4f66f23MfgtpnF0bNh5S7IZF0jSE9qN7Xv1mq4KX u22Z/ElrDrndq2KR1ru6RQA+gIZhTAN7QZOtrluF/v5NhXknplTIkpOAimzo22q0Ny7u Jbbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=QP7a4Qj3F0qRRnhsxZQbupcZGegPJ37EAy/Buscj+oM=; b=coCimq3+G0UmFESh5YKbAqQsG+uUxpQ1znGN+IiHXyS2YeyEnBvfD3KOcE9MueAt8e Wz24n+TTKRuTA3rO4APGFqpbP/6Agm0a8L9ACVRaDYJz6Tj5+SV9LAG3AvGzuwxMeu7c Gde20vkp03LrgiIHe77gRVxyma8mMizBpgwZZObIdzjTVNvypAtjqOcYoa+J1BMSU52W xXy5w8jyfaf0M+DsfUPdalqkObyP3/RigOQwXygM3BhuJsQTGFiqNen1+iyVbQOXTjXm 9yJPvOFQcO51VloOgRc1vNyXBAXdEd0vKXH8Matb1KSYDtvy89GmJOt3ZS5J4XvfxTJY 8uvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK41zK0QzXu4Nzrex2W0z53FiF+fJt2qeDv4saXSRIFvBswUl4+Ps8nMA5l2yY95nI+DeieNvHJ9bgMmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.36.38 with SMTP id n6mr30954063igj.31.1460542387064; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:13:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <013801d19566$d18237f0$7486a7d0$@unizar.es> References: <013801d19566$d18237f0$7486a7d0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:13:07 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Vesna Manojlovic Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #2 Introduction X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:13:10 -0000 Hi! On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: >> On the other hand, I would like to add other motivators and goals of the Alternative >> Networks, such as >> - increased freedoms of the participants in those networks, >> - alternative approaches to ownership (commons and sharing as opposed to >> commercial ownership & exploitation), >> - increases in the capacity for individuals to exercise their rights, need for the >> decentralized decisions making processes about network design, use, growth... > > See this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01182.html I like this list as well. > o Users in alternative networks may participate in the network > design, deployment, operation and maintenance. And ownership? Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 03:24:43 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B71612D18A for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:24:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3nD-kpSNxDvq for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x241.google.com (mail-ig0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44BC612D11A for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x241.google.com with SMTP id qu10so5930350igc.1 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:24:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=ghTfiuGlEiVh52R5nyfMADVLKPUszkvcLK5auszsP0U=; b=AR/DGH9usdUWPp1i5XsaFqg4X1TLQ53Uf6AXDpl784E7toWYORFbCwZp+l+OnvJTSv 0+zj4I/SGIxyl2Uf8Aa4pvLh4kCFypYmWeRfx7vOGGRF/qYgGVV8o+hvtACog+LfvyT7 JgaI7P0qVgn3yTWPrth0VvXAxideg9dZIggzNCrv62XLSXKpRib2Qz/Y5e5Xdq/cA9du mu3ycnBRAk37s30WSXzbSgRxmLtrLqRjLuuka9LdqkIpWKCjtMkwzo6Nxj/CrQanNDgr vG35synzUwIIYi+mLSoiEMendEdbf6GGQX3dP4MVh9CwZTiMlyfzLEv9pfXpsf5PWtu1 cZAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ghTfiuGlEiVh52R5nyfMADVLKPUszkvcLK5auszsP0U=; b=ad8t4t39A2USD6MMARYEzYTOOxRmTaVlquCYFQ3DpW+oUnHJVoG4jtGVN7AGiPHQ7n /OUgRFsOtIxWvQ9UOusQ3Lb8XOo72RuyqF+cbkps15/WJJNtV6AhIFyft9TGh8Wkqj/t mH8lG46pfZWrztnj+fEwpxMqfUrwhdb8CRkUjaplNwAUs1eNJ447CJ1OHzUsPOl23TEk la+XGIQvAOYzBOe5u7YPxgm7RNhI4eOLw5vrIdxaz2G5+d10E5g81+vCiuclaUN6t4TB 4eNmVr+WeZvKLACL7efeSSi7L4hUlv+0HxMXkh2JOoPDuw9KfkepEVPvurfCxMk7kOBT M3eQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV8qjZj0/US2kvTrg7X0OXkpdWt0jwcxoAML2r/mvXV+hHpo+uxZ4spZ0oWGdJP2wq3yrAtWiMut+HCUw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.92.41 with SMTP id cj9mr9490430igb.38.1460543078516; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:24:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <005c01d194c6$ad5c5540$0814ffc0$@unizar.es> References: <005c01d194c6$ad5c5540$0814ffc0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:24:38 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #4. Classification X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:24:41 -0000 Hi! On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > We tried to find some "orthogonal" axes (see > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00640.html) and we > arrived to these: > > 4.1. Commercial model / promoter > 4.2. Goals and motivation > 4.3. Administrative model > 4.4. Technologies employed > 4.5. Typical scenarios > > They may not be "orthogonal", and not every combination of the criteria does > make sense, but I think they are useful for classifying the networks. I would then suggest to add "ownership of equipment" or just "ownership" to one of these dimensions. If we extend also goals and motivation with additional options, then I think this is closer to be able to cover community networks. > The list of motivations has been expanded as you suggested. Then we should probably add them as used by community networks. >> Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default. > > Can you provide a reference? Thanks! Ubiquiti calls this technology airMax: https://www.ubnt.com/broadband/ https://dl.ubnt.com/AirMax_ppt.pdf It is their proprietary WiFi extension. There is also an open source project aiming to provide this as well: https://wiki.freebsd.org/WifiTDMA Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 03:35:03 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6D212E4AA for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:35:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WjVRi-duiPk3 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x242.google.com (mail-ig0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D781512E4AC for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x242.google.com with SMTP id kb1so5918695igb.3 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:34:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=XtX91DGWhsvb7d3Z4ED9x3/A5McdP6ShQ/d4wnKs1BM=; b=ZatRnBp1ber8FjsNeaGmKEbDomdKr7+LNP3kP1pArXf1Yxlc6oyubSy/6k+FcPsQbQ gppAXbs1HKrm59YP6CJZ1kz6hOhXyN2DysAQsxKDnwT8lM6gyUjt77f878iX/l2WSxuw 6JAWtyALWVD0Qugeq5aABRYdv434tQDcqicP6hat1uBmnYfUj0KcGV03PlX4pS6aALI4 5TDW4o8B3OH+G21llVrxdyX9VnsUzJbohmGgf4u3Hp9WBskq0gHIs9bANCfbLp4ugXnc Y2UvmTtYH2jQl9nYgUYjClufblitelp27kFUYqiYWXHfIf3PrT5tuUVucQqhuSiFBuAm r98g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=XtX91DGWhsvb7d3Z4ED9x3/A5McdP6ShQ/d4wnKs1BM=; b=GHpjUGXhYUMhtoaTR7YswT201USKB9eootAiC1A/sw5j1F+V4w9fuotDvaAE7dvm9U iD6glXx+n28k/RJOjN/0vvKF0Qh1J0dcZaIbTUNH9rhycr/M1mrGHh1LbPw9krjA/dLb JaIUlbcEEoA2VMnOma3ImAy1g+T3wJL48DFWTTt2SpUcFKDlXYjhwgjnqPW/weEWWQO6 TUFIIDupoznsXE5pcrdS6hGolZoE5vqn8RX7Vf+Dsxm3+NIR37A5+YIVQH6gMau/RYRx I9T8OK4XEsCnbWfhp6vbSz3Bt2UdaHhTFAP/jd02d0FsWB+WxAFa7mtwqzzae4Jj0n3J GE3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWFTaSUNyBWFdu/z6hXxCmQV/oTIR23qRVjpYS3PIq4q/OvnhsgHQavigcreseID1ityEbI7doB6WVVAQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.92.41 with SMTP id cj9mr9538212igb.38.1460543699127; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:34:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <006e01d194c9$063c0870$12b41950$@unizar.es> References: <006e01d194c9$063c0870$12b41950$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:34:59 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #5: Community Networks X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:35:02 -0000 Hi! On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: >> "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the system > may add >> link segments to the network in such a way that the new segments can > support >> multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of the > joined >> network, including the capacity to further extend the network. Once these > link >> segments are joined to the network, there is no longer a meaningful > distinction >> between the previous and the new extent of the network." >> >> Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with > "autonomous >> system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) > > This is true. I have added "individuals". I think another important difference is the control aspect. One can much easier add new device to the community network than one is to add it to the Internet BGP peering. > This is the new version. Feel free to make some improvement suggestions: > > 5.1. Community Networks > > +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ > | Commercial | community | > | model/promoter | | > +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ > | Goals and | reducing hurdles; to serve underserved | > | motivation | areas; network neutrality | We should expand this list with others we added to the overall "goals and motivation" dimension. > new extent of the network. The term "participant" means an > individual, who may become user, provider and manager of the network > at the same time. Hm, there can also be organizations and companies participating with nodes in the network. I like the addition, so explanation, that the participant is in multiple roles at the same time, not just user/consumer, but they are probably not necessary an individual. > infrastructure). In Community Networks, everybody keeps the > ownership of what he/she has contributed. I would suggest the following wording: In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has contributed, or contribute it to the network as a whole, commons, loosing track of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of the community stewardship of said equipment. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 03:41:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AB912E4B5 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:41:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xQ5jdoK9oVbT for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67EB412E49B for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3DAewom012087; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:40:58 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Vesna Manojlovic'" , Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:41:03 +0200 Message-ID: <016201d19570$fa586d70$ef094850$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVcOPDbqw8S5NtRhWWeyYKWvCyyQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #6. Sections 5.1, 5.2. and 5.3 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:41:09 -0000 Hi, > > 5. Classification of Alternative Networks > > > ... > > > > In some cases, real examples of Alternative Networks are cited. >=20 > s/some/all Ok. Thanks: 5. Classification of Alternative Networks This section classifies Alternative Networks according to the criteria explained previously. Each of them has different incentive structures, maybe common technological challenges, but most importantly interesting usage challenges which feed into the incentives as well as the technological challenges. At the beginning of each subsection, a table is presented including a classification of each network according to the criteria listed in the "Classification criteria" subsection. Real examples of each kind of Alternative Network are cited. >=20 > > 5.1. Community Networks > > > > = +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ > > | Commercial | community = | > > | model/promoter | = | > > = +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ >=20 > s/Commercial/Ownership Discussed before >=20 > ... >=20 > > These networks grow organically, since they are formed by the > > aggregation of nodes belonging to different users. A minimal > > governance infrastructure is required in order to coordinate IP > > addressing, routing, etc. An example of this kind of Community > > Network is described in [Braem]. These networks follow a > > participatory model, >=20 > of governance? administration? Ok. Thanks. New version: These networks follow a participatory administration model, which has been shown effective in connecting geographically dispersed people, thus enhancing and extending digital Internet rights. >=20 > > which has been shown effective in connecting > > geographically dispersed people, thus enhancing and extending = digital > > Internet rights. >=20 > ... >=20 > > The majority of Community Networks comply with the definition of = Free > > Network, included in Section 2. >=20 > Examples: >=20 > &&&& >=20 > > 5.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs > > > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Commercial | company = | > > | model/promoter | = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ >=20 > ^ s/Commercial/Ownership >=20 > > | Goals and | to serve underserved areas; to reduce capital = | > > | motivation | expenditures in Internet access; to provide = | > > | | additional sources of capital = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Administration | centralized = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Technologies | wireless e.g. [IEEE.802-11-2012], = | > > | | [IEEE.802-16.2008], unlicensed frequencies = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Typical | rural = | > > | scenarios | = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ >=20 > Why only rural? What about this? rural (urban deployments also exist) >=20 > In this same section, "Starting 2006"... claims the opposite ;-) >=20 > > > ... >=20 > > > > Since 2006, the deployment of cloud-managed WISPs has been = possible > > with hardware from companies such as Meraki and later OpenMesh = and > > others. >=20 > Should the companies be mentioned at all? > If yes, why not in [], and moved to [references]? Done. Thanks. Most WISPs are operated by local companies responding to a perceived market gap. There is a small but growing number of WISPs, such as [Airjaldi] in India that have expanded from local service into multiple locations. Since 2006, the deployment of cloud-managed WISPs has been possible with hardware from companies such as [Meraki] and later [OpenMesh] and others. Until recently, however, most of these services have been aimed at "global North" markets. In 2014 a cloud-managed WISP service aimed at "global South" markets was launched [Everylayer]. >=20 > > Until recently, however, most of these services have been > > aimed at industrialized markets. Everylayer [Everylayer], = launched > > in 2014, is the first cloud-managed WISP service aimed at = emerging > > markets. >=20 > Why all of a sudden a new terminology - industrialized, emerging = markets? How > does this relate to previous terminology? Can it be replaced with = urban/rural, > north/south? >=20 Done. Thanks. > > 5.3. Shared infrastructure model > > > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Commercial | shared: companies and users = | > > | model/promoter | = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ >=20 > ^ s/Commercial/Ownership >=20 > ... >=20 > > > > In conventional networks, the operator usually owns the >=20 > s/conventional/mainstream Ok. Thanks. >=20 > > telecommunications infrastructure required for the service, or > > sometimes rents infrastructure to/from other companies. The = problem > > arises in large areas with low population density, in which = neither > > the operator nor other companies have deployed infrastructure and > > such deployments are not likely to happen due to the low = potential > > return on investment. > > >=20 > ... >=20 > > Some real examples can be referenced in the TUCAN3G project, (see > > http://www.ict-tucan3g.eu/) >=20 > this URL should be moved out of the text, and placed in [references] Ok. Thanks. I have changed the web by a reference to a paper. Some real examples can be referenced in the TUCAN3G project, which deployed demonstrator networks in two regions in the Amazon forest in Peru [Simo_d]. In these networks [Simo_a], the operator and several rural communities cooperated to provide services through rural networks built up with WiLD links [WiLD]. In these cases, the networks belong to the public health authorities and were deployed with funds come from international cooperation for telemedicine purposes. Publications that justify the feasibility of this approach can also be found on that website. >=20 > > which deployed demonstrator networks in > > two regions in the Amazon forest in Peru. In these networks > > [Simo_a], the operator and several rural communities cooperated = to > > provide services through rural networks built up with WiLD links > > [WiLD]. In these cases, the networks belong to the public health > > authorities and were deployed with funds come from international > > cooperation for telemedicine purposes. Publications that justify = the > > feasibility of this approach can also be found on that website. > > >=20 Thanks, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 03:42:44 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C30912E4DC for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:42:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RgiwNA9B51lY for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x243.google.com (mail-io0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C51612E4D9 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x243.google.com with SMTP id z133so6145763iod.1 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:42:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=kUUR7lsTzUXMUTvlZLnwitYZNlGUNr0ZhJUKqRhkSfI=; b=soXcy6s1EzWlH36p3r7KOUUNdgKIjUOtTfqE5xPS8VpqDXv/vO9FjchH2s/pp35gdo T2h+SoLBHk4kusSoO/Qc8IMEar1cx0dHuW171j4gUqgaYKRkqWnyRAqJLHxBE6Hboa9V JdSKfPi7bDgJCPCNWr+fBEcfDahzlRiMsoNYSNn8/k/6K7Cq37wQ1DkiD/0WKr+7dMRm aW+dvy/ZipNP/x+3KJ0TSRscXTrb9eQTyoqZGP3++kk8JnH05/MZR47GpR0XPXzDXTQR zAInZmdWHtkFU8r6uDmWy7PZVp7K3Dj9ukNcJ2laouaf/42ovVpMRgFxql5Xr83WuDym +Psg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=kUUR7lsTzUXMUTvlZLnwitYZNlGUNr0ZhJUKqRhkSfI=; b=IQ9nznNwyqJiasNDlivithlUVH4W4YKX7OIjkzvqQDNZlNdC8w/wt9I2dKPK/Jxt3B HwvQCR7ZhYSgnH+HzfLRHsHiZRV2z5WvZCfGFq/91rkzOt+ZdEDvAX9kxb8t+e+cYHyd Ol8oYa3b/FWbonu2BI9zoV9b4sveoRuU2BK4zv7qVV390ffIt5hvtIAELdaZWmTOR3Aj BEfS+UysKKQHFqWvguP4ZhQFTzUkdBITYiC6kp4YruE8unbeVRE4lYmkmqqLbL0ZRzTk oIu8+YWp6l1TOKTVKweDqsVh6jQ9y5w9bt4fX8iuuafQTO2qQta6vR6GDXHMifQJXxwC /taA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVHNS4U5WjswxhGjBFveieLDR3pySTvoKQrq/JS8AkuSVJyZ9jRS9GBAl6QHeKr7hFEB3ZLo6hSKlzv5Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.33.7 with SMTP id h7mr9192511ioh.30.1460544160505; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:42:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <010001d1955f$2ad48ea0$807dabe0$@unizar.es> References: <010001d1955f$2ad48ea0$807dabe0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:42:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #10 Traffic management X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:42:43 -0000 Hi! On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: >> In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself on > different >> frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh networks ran > everything >> (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs on the same channel, but > with 5 >> GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band devices this is often separated now. > > I think this is interesting. Do you have any reference or example to support > this statement? Hm, this is so common that I am unsure how to reference this. See diagrams here for an example: https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh/Diagrams Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 03:50:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB6212D626 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AQlqNeheRS7R for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x242.google.com (mail-io0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 885EB12D59B for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x242.google.com with SMTP id s2so6215512iod.3 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=hGjNalTwOftFpGRw94T3wceYwBeKJ0ia622gtYm6Nn8=; b=ZXCbW6wWdBZXU70rVd49fSzqp8H8JWDLHo7BAgJiYWqfbKAy3XCGj5qL1pghKdBN1p Fg98XKvQj4JdmRmlu1gp+KHrUKQtqqLUcNmrqTboV5cEFC33XHVtUNwOsWoz2rvYHy9o 3Q6SwTvFvnukibkFVjkncZIGCz+wu7/0m0lObrq2fXGfIvnjX20oxG4zfEcqbYgHns1D 3nYV1kUs3yoXHr9Wnd2nUfBbU3ZjIcqFpx/BtZLxZfZqvyQhzdGZ7Rk412tIp3PlEKhA TLbEzy5YA5IPG0iRUtqi1Rrj+h+8Paq/GGsJEzeByxyX8gr7Ji39a6+4TBRuOKS9hn4/ 7VSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=hGjNalTwOftFpGRw94T3wceYwBeKJ0ia622gtYm6Nn8=; b=DbsAKxVcRrropjvMmVr8zoCOwhHG72rFZzTEV+an4uFF9oQiy+SRMFwPv9wDSqHBtP 2p3Ph0dj4JYGbjRx91wBpKcEb6JNjBwRgkAWU8oXQG1N705ToVa23nE+k6iiRfLJpnMC 9nw97rBGxg6R7P8iC9hRMzxSOv0wa4C9hFse7aAe2LHJOyVJ/75obbgbCGMupxaccSQy eNHWBQ4XSUrse4hTazC8/aKsRh+p0/uDwCDvyX+nIL2jPaUX/Y0PnJ+KvQyIaOwTQK8i 9s5OMX22jllvCTW9e86lb+VxKov94zFZynmZ0zmYTymd+kPag3SxTzC6kLh5SpfA/xV1 Hblg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVM2pQhqL9nECJ4+gAyraTsdvZPfQr8VOlqjmwWuapYm41Ud+X1UwWWCH++rj7GHSPj5tcz814NuIPumg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.33.7 with SMTP id h7mr9225208ioh.30.1460544634506; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <010401d19562$31490e20$93db2a60$@unizar.es> References: <010401d19562$31490e20$93db2a60$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , =?UTF-8?B?Tmljb2zDoXMgRWNow6FuaXo=?= Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #9: Services provided X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:50:48 -0000 Hi! On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: >> - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN >> - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org >> - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ >> - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms >> - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries >> - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices >> - Community radio/TV stations >> >> What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet > access. For >> example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless communities which > made >> networks in villages just to be able to play games. > > Do you have any reference/example? For which one? Networks in Croatia? There are some links, but I do not think many are really active anymore: http://wireless.mzm.hr/ http://wireless.uzice.net/ http://www.dugave.net/ http://www.wirelesskz.net/ http://www.5net.hr/ http://extremewifi.hr/ Anyway, this was just an example. I think listing those specialized services for community/alternative networks above is more important. > This other e-mail also suggested some improvements: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01191.html > > This is the improved version of the section. Feel free to say whatever you > want. I do not have strong position on this section. To me it feels a bit redundant, but it is probably a question of style. Mitar > 7.3. Services provided > > This section provides an overview of the services provided by the > network. Many Alternative Networks can be considered Autonomous > Systems, being (or aspiring to be) a part of the Internet. > > The services provided can include, but are not limited to: > > o Web browsing. > > o e-mail. > > o Remote desktop (e.g. using my home computer and my Internet > connection when I am away). > > o FTP file sharing (e.g. distribution of software and media). > > o VoIP (e.g. with SIP). > > o P2P file sharing. > > o Public video cameras. > > o DNS. > > o Online games servers. > > o Jabber instant messaging. > > o Weather stations. > > o Network monitoring. > > o Videoconferencing / streaming. > > o Radio streaming. > > o Message / Bulletin board. > > Due to bandwidth limitations, some services (file sharing, VoIP, > etc.) may not be allowed in some Alternative Networks. In some of > these cases, a number of federated proxies provide web browsing > service for the users. > > Some specialized services have been especifically developed for > Alternative Networks: > > o Inter-network peering/VPNs (e.g. https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC- > VPN). > > o Local wikis (e.g. https://localwiki.org). > > o Community oriented portals (e.g. http://tidepools.co/). > > o Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platform.s > > o VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between > countries. > > o Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to > devices. > > o Community radio/TV stations. > > 7.3.1. Use of VPNs > > Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing > Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with > Internet access. > > 7.3.2. Other facilities > > Other facilities, as NTP or IRC servers may also be present in > Alternative Networks. > > > Best regards, > > Jose > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 03:53:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B097912DCAB for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:53:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FzRIyPYrF_KC for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86ACF12DDA1 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3DArK2u000937; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:53:21 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Vesna Manojlovic'" , Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:53:26 +0200 Message-ID: <016501d19572$b525f8b0$1f71ea10$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVcPuW5CYIV0nqQ6yyfGTLx8tiDQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #7. Section 5.4 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:53:29 -0000 Hi, > > 5.4. Crowdshared approaches, >=20 > (remove from the title) > led by the users and third party stakeholders > (/remove) I would not change the title of one of the categories at this stage. It = is also a matter of style. >=20 > > > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Commercial | community, public stakeholders, private = | > > | model/promoter | companies, supporters of a crowdshared = approach | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ >=20 > ...ownership model Discussed before. >=20 > > | Goals and | sharing connectivity and resources = | > > | motivation | = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Administration | Non-centralized = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Technologies | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012] = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Typical | urban and rural = | > > | scenarios | = | > > = +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > > > Table 4: Crowdshared approaches characteristics summary > > >=20 > I find lots of problems with this category, because of the mixing of = the two > approaches: commercial companies who use "pseudo-sharing" to achieve = their > commercial goals, *and* actual non-centralized sharing by users. >=20 > First group is NOT "non-centralized"; companies like FON, KPN = (Holland), > Comcast (USA), SBB (Serbia) have their centralized infrastructure, and = users > can not influence the "sharing" or use of their equipment. >=20 > Often, if these users do not like the "mandatory sharing", they can = not even > "vote with their wallet" (again neo-liberal, free market terminology = ;-) , > because sometimes those providers have a monopoly (or duopoly) and are = the only > provider in that area... >=20 > > These networks can be defined as a set of nodes whose owners = share > > common interests (e.g. sharing connectivity; resources; = peripherals) > > regardless of their physical location. They conform to the = following > > approach: the home router creates two wireless networks: one of = them > > is normally used by the owner, >=20 > Often, the equipment is NOT owned by users, but "given" (sold, leased) = to them > by the commercial ISP. >=20 > > and the other one is public. A small > > fraction of the bandwidth is allocated to the public network, to = be > > employed by any user of the service in the immediate area. Some > > examples are described in [PAWS] and [Sathiaseelan_c]. Other > > examples are found in the networks created and managed by City > > Councils (e.g., [Heer]). The "openwireless movement" > > (https://openwireless.org/) also promotes the sharing of private > > wireless networks. > > > > In the same way, some companies [Fon] promote the use of Wi-Fi > > routers with dual access: a Wi-Fi network for the user, and a = shared > > one. >=20 > But it's not really "shared", since only the *customers* of the same > _commercial ISP_ can "share" with each other. In FON, a number of operators are associated, so you can connect to APs = of people subscribed to other operator's network: https://fon.com/wifi-solutions/ >=20 > > A user community is created, and people can join the network in > > different ways: they can buy a router, so they share their = connection > > and in turn they get access to all the routers associated with = the > > community. >=20 > This is not a true community, it's the commercial customers of the = commercial > provider. I have substituted the term "community" by " Adequate AAA policies are = implemented, so people can join the network in different ways". >=20 > ... >=20 > > VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an > > incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money = for > > sharing their network, the network operators are paid by the = VNOs, > > who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role. >=20 > Again, I think that this category should be split between "providers" = that > offer this as a part of their commercial business model; and the = "movement" in > which the users themselves are organised in another way, and are truly = sharing > the resources. >=20 As a summary, I would say: The two sub-categories have=20 - something in common (the user shares part of his/her bandwidth, two = SSIDs are created by the AP, etc.)=20 - and some differences (one is "coummunity", and the other is organized = by companies. So as long as they have something in common, they can be grouped = together. I have tried to set the differences more clear in the new = version of the text, using different paragraphs: These networks can be defined as a set of nodes whose owners share common interests (e.g. sharing connectivity; resources; peripherals) regardless of their physical location. They conform to the following approach: the home router creates two wireless networks: one of them is normally used by the owner, and the other one is public. A small fraction of the bandwidth is allocated to the public network, to be employed by any user of the service in the immediate area. Some examples are described in [PAWS] and [Sathiaseelan_c]. Other examples are found in the networks created and managed by City Councils (e.g., [Heer]). The "openwireless movement" (https://openwireless.org/) also promotes the sharing of private wireless networks. Some companies [Fon] also promote the use of Wi-Fi routers with dual access: a Wi-Fi network for the user, and a shared one. Adequate AAA policies are implemented, so people can join the network in different ways: they can buy a router, so they share their connection and in turn they get access to all the routers associated with the community. Some users can even get some revenue every time another user connects to their Wi-Fi access point. Users that are not part of the community can buy passes in order to use the network. Some mainstream telecommunications operators collaborate with these communities, by including the functionality required to create the two access networks in their routers. Some of these efforts are surveyed in [Shi]. Best regards, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 03:55:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E35212D1D1 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:54:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2WNkPYA1XUUe for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A16F212D138 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3DAspbC003183; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:54:51 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Vesna Manojlovic'" , Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:54:56 +0200 Message-ID: <016701d19572$ead67a70$c0836f50$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGVctMinGSmNla7SUCg3JTdzIPDZQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #8: Section 7 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:54:59 -0000 Hi, =20 > > 7. Upper layers >=20 > Reference? >=20 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite I think we don't need a reference for this. It would be too basic for = the expected readers of the document. >=20 > Conclusions: >=20 Discussed before. > ##### >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > Regards, > Vesna Thanks a lot, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 04:06:49 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1240512DA75 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z3WiJA7Qvh8I for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x243.google.com (mail-io0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61B7112DA2A for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x243.google.com with SMTP id g185so6305157ioa.0 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=BG1sXu8AX/iFCAR8z5op5I87qBBTWTe+OTGKU92D7Ac=; b=P9bZ9smMMJg8bBvb+R2Pa7QLxs6C2JzZWMTfjUhkLGkpnBbXF/U1DpkauIsSYYVYHf Pv0Kx1W68glAcDeS1oFNqF3U+Z02oBmcgY1NRskN4KI4KABEu5i8IslKtDOS1daktRk1 YyE27nZ6k+3opfIxcwah3lP9CGh/JE9Ad/txS8VIa6P8C1pFgf+aHLZ5ACj/IPslnC+4 Y7qbha+pzj8Lc3zQe171Be3/FspAtaL6GF3XII8wVRmzmgq00Yzkm42+1JxUBc4Fjjhp yahawjVNrbfKlmyl8BJQ4FI6oXDgQkkHOMQD3nTKxV0PwpsGZgcTXyagoxbPyIDyfomY 9PvQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=BG1sXu8AX/iFCAR8z5op5I87qBBTWTe+OTGKU92D7Ac=; b=mEymZxE6XedvnP4tXq6oDWtCDWK+8+D9nkgg618prFfRgwthefL2pfLZUUQgWS1lFM RkkrlM/XMrKU2LCu4aR1sRg2SZKybld7prOzfLeKDGhElKH87kGUSOsZyZniG1ZQtRt3 L2gglA9RlM99rv2gx6zjiZmROBnKkqW5gypy5sZMTtWPlzGtT+r0Cy6IXlqQPqnbDLBD ag4v+1eGEfPtaYSijSKZJ8g3W+73xd9euiVZLTctiX89TuOGnOomuc6lVW56vsgPDgMW MtjbN5gO5B8Z6O7ce6CtLLvVx4PW3i8BYBejKqSvvDv7uqdu2NkOL1JKnM2zklB/L+KL stkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW30WEOP5tFYtPsLtO2yPGyBT4AAcO9wsydAMSAMNs5GWtcfW1CDyeIP+V7hEL1ntKTnejdfFW1fm2QcQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.33.7 with SMTP id h7mr9306834ioh.30.1460545605540; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <010801d19562$f1e9cca0$d5bd65e0$@unizar.es> References: <010801d19562$f1e9cca0$d5bd65e0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:45 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #11: Final questions X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:06:48 -0000 Hi! On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > According to https://diyisp.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=about : > > The DIY ISP initiative, short for Do-It-Yourself Internet Service Provider, > is a loose federation of small-scale ISPs from around the world. Its main > goals are: *facilitating communication between the various local ISP > initiatives, providing technical and legal documentation, and helping the > creation of new initiatives.* > > I think this is not an Alternative Network, but an initiative to promote / > help / merge other ones. Do you agree? OK. The question is, are such meta-organizations out of the scope? I am OK with that, just pointing out. >> Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft: >> >> https://rhizomatica.org/ >> http://www.servalproject.org/ >> http://villagetelco.org/ >> > Where would you add them in the draft? To me they are interesting because they are projects using alternative networks to bring phone services to people. They have different business and organizational models: - Serval is self-organizing, not using GSM to transport, but offering phone service at the end - Village Telco is mesh, where the idea is that entrepreneurs in villages will deploy links between villages and start offering service to fellow villagers; it uses ad-hoc WiFi networks - rhizomatica is using open source GSM stack to provide self-operated GSM network So I do not know where all this would go. The question is, are we maybe missing a type of a network. So one which phone service primarily? I see that rhizomatica is probably cited through [Mexican] (they are the project behind those networks in Mexico). BTW, the [Heimerl] reference I could not really resolve? Is this maybe the same as [Village]? So, I do not know much about these networks. But I know that we might want to explain them a bit more. Not necessary only as a technology, but also as a type of an alternative network, a phone network. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 04:11:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23C412D817 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:11:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5NsDN1RppBgL for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net (lb2-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net [194.109.24.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F91512D809 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xs9.xs4all.nl ([194.109.21.9]) by smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net with ESMTP id hnB11s00G0BlZ8J01nB1Gf; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:11:02 +0200 Received: from xs9.xs4all.nl (IDENT:28329@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs9.xs4all.nl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id u3DBB1rY017629; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:11:01 +0200 Received: from localhost (becha@localhost) by xs9.xs4all.nl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id u3DBB1Wp017565; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:11:01 +0200 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:11:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Vesna Manojlovic To: Jose Saldana In-Reply-To: <016701d19572$ead67a70$c0836f50$@unizar.es> Message-ID: References: <016701d19572$ead67a70$c0836f50$@unizar.es> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) X-NCC-RegId: eu.zz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Cc: gaia@irtf.org Subject: Re: [gaia] [] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #8: Section 7 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:11:06 -0000 Hi Jose, thanks a lot for the consideration of my review, and for the detailed replies. It will take me a while to digest it all, and in many cases I have nothing to add; but for some of these I will reply in a few days. I appreciate how much work all this is for you, and I am truly grateful for your dedicaiton & effort! It must be hard to incorporate all these different opinions while "guarding" the common spirit of the original working group & draft authors. I don't envy you! Keep up the good work! Vesna -- community, cooperation, commons, squirrels // http://becha.home.xs4all.nl nature, anarchy, utopia, anthropocene, collapse // https://lists.puscii.nl/wws/arc/uncivilization From nobody Wed Apr 13 04:27:11 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDBF12D8C7 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:27:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xbUAp9u9rYF5 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x242.google.com (mail-io0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9487D12D964 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x242.google.com with SMTP id u185so6308361iod.2 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:27:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=oOQEd7K1+ZHxOY8FbQTmiMb3VP07MmzR6AqzUVtzgWg=; b=FfxS4LYkAYX80SxntP9gWOQseXERwyeOYoawOYRjX8H3ELIpTLT659TC1hdEfQMf7r XoFEcBNaQ7Wi0KaULnB5nvwEvDSzZEj7CBLVi6UZ4IYo3ZuR4IsG5RweJaZ9NZ9epOQy /B/hlBESWaB48M05ZfhNvP8eF/SLQLfgFxcffdo7IQAW06QtT6ap0tdK32FuvtegQ8qL c+DncA7oakZIZXNaqDcq2HPccHy5TsjbAhB0z0SVZ2u+KO7qvlK+2MS4FKWDokZumTd5 9CkWxMUncHulLS+ShzylmIMgYS1/ZHwPbbZbX8aEzQZOQRZ0mAcrlhFoeqSpSrQwtO7O 6N5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=oOQEd7K1+ZHxOY8FbQTmiMb3VP07MmzR6AqzUVtzgWg=; b=ffj3tHgHSLcv+eY81lNJoRvaTKLiBTUnLGr+i4P5Ca30BTcyuuBAqLK2CePqhZLBHu O8pcx6W6PN9iJ378wL63+sfl4Ko84YFsQIp55/bTzO2trxLr+eo/CTG0y5I35SZUeEB0 5voAAndJpZ1PGMhN9356I6/GjPLDOhinJ5fZDmLSWSIjPujGBVvEALyTbh62T1MsemNC QT2SPcVZtdUN0w2MAeiRdxT4ZQCN4CrtOsIUapSlHFMlR7wP3HOuwJkxEJzKljUuhyH6 nKciBPxkjG57HeXGnyGoOnov+HyOfzW/Eog3O8I7B6NgypNPmi4hLmczYIRpejlwqOBT v7zQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWnvmOX2jkWDoW61hUJH7rwvGme6DLXrHr85L43yEwmtGWuNQJL8D+3PY2Vtt+tCaXFaao796LO9V0ZZw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.33.7 with SMTP id h7mr9413511ioh.30.1460546827527; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:27:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:27:07 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mitar To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: gaia Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:27:10 -0000 Hi! OK, for me it was just confusing categorization. Maybe because other categorizations list one option per dot, here we list separate dimensions for each dot (urban/rural, south/north). Type checking does not match with other categories. :-) And then we use most of the time "urban and rural" anyway. :-) BTW, WISPs can be both urban and rural. In San Francisco we have a popular WISP: https://monkeybrains.net/wireless.html Pretty urban use. There is nothing really in WISPs to make them rural only. Mitar On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > > Hi, > >> Section 4.5, typical scenarios: >> >> I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any network > I know of >> outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Community > networks >> maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow and > spread >> over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries. > > In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for rural > areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the future a lot > of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural deployments exist, > so for me the classification makes sense. > > Thanks! > > Jose > > -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 05:07:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86A112D918 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:07:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tJMYZ5rHyymA for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EE0012D905 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id g184so66378108lfb.3 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:07:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=7Kz7DK8DpbDI8xOnkowYkDanlB5qIPysML1D4Os8tNw=; b=br+UOiGOLEFNMjiZmWtvrgbMKQtft4JYAuptrLRsvvz29H+ceR6Ub4VMLhHLeAj6RE p3vrqHWItrRtiNVoL0yw1rywaCKgwtvwjFx8jZyfbWV8hdkN+EwiZ4X/bNfGdhL4iVg1 af32omcrHPtIMKu2O0Kbd7XSQWBK+z60F0TRrgRKNSRHAhOCcp2fWl/5qKuULWcPb66U +HAOc70Nr9BTuFMdn2idPSLwN8aUyYVtjESrgHVsnMprxZkzLIX/y/vl0AiHuY7M3Gjv M163NtxhY+DaAn3T6/iDzRjuJ0ReRLBH3aSamMs/Vym7NjtNbS/EUn2ffav+x4kj7lv0 V4oA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=7Kz7DK8DpbDI8xOnkowYkDanlB5qIPysML1D4Os8tNw=; b=ahwLN32Oi3fPHCniXbRavlAzrt+r/S+shd8jBpiG062JnKavxSBENCxvAwprZpq5+S tmyYZSHk1Fop1Ld5kfIBM72gYdf+DV05gIUH2bKctwXeQtk8PmgY72JTbhD/UsEbYDbG ju7SIQP3nHxOdUwnryHJQlThN7Jb6GKD2/iAl2Nhgjh8slD05VUaBj7P9mLVxaakmEPc TMGXU/1s04TSvdlFAXsNyGbnsl6J/Y/xCpiVIAgLhIgMFsoy/8OnS4rnVKHONXgMV+cS X6k1aLLtz/w3wd/Vye/XcT5J2rxpa5zJq1T58asJQTbINuC5DQCsaCKpFVZFHF6O3bpZ Zehg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVYNXRhIn9xyHuGA8HSItgRYjrUWZFiAi3emrZZdTjw1VWURN2L5WWMcjJZqTR4wmBRx9ULjQaSYFw4Iw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.16.168 with SMTP id h8mr3747655lbd.90.1460549270700; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.208.11 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:07:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <014e01d1956a$a9f65460$fde2fd20$@unizar.es> References: <014e01d1956a$a9f65460$fde2fd20$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:07:50 +0200 Message-ID: From: Ermanno Pietrosemoli To: Jose Saldana Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3acb2750c1e05305ca027 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , Vesna Manojlovic Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Vesna review, question #5. Section 4 X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:55 -0000 --001a11c3acb2750c1e05305ca027 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, First I want to congratulate Jose for his patience and hard work. As for LoRa, the supported throughput is not enough for normal Internet access, the technology is meant for sensor applications where power consumption and long range are optimized at the expense of reduced throughput, so they are out of the scope of this work. Best, Ermanno On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > Hi, > > > > 4. Classification criteria > > > > > > The classification of Alternative Network Deployments, presented i= n > > > this document, is based on the following criteria: > > > > > > 4.1. Commercial model / promoter > > > > Please rename this section, and this concept, to "ownership". > > > As said before, I do not agree with the change. Some people may promote a > network without owning it. > > > > > Owning and ownership are mentioned later on, but not here - why? > > > > Also, some of these models are *not* _commercial_ at all. > > > > > The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting > > > > s/promoting/owning > > > > > an Alternative Network can be: > > > > > > o A community of users. > > > > > > o A public stakeholder. > > > > > > o A private company. > > > > > > o Supporters of a crowdshared approach. > > > > > > o A community that already owns some infrastructure shares it wit= h > > > an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes. > > > > > > o A research or academic entity. > > > > > > 4.2. Goals and motivation > > > > > > Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the > > > underlying motivation for them, > > > > (remove) > > > e.g., addressing deployment and usage hurdles: > > (/remove) > > > > > o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the > end > > > user, or both). > > > > > > o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional > > > carrier-based financing). > > > > > > o Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or networ= k > > > administration) > > > > > > o Leveraging expertise. > > > > > > o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in > > > general; relevance, etc.) > > > > > > o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities)= . > > > > > > o Network neutrality guarantees. > > > > Add, from 3.0 > > > > + providing themselves with affordable access. > > > > + increase human capital and the creation of content and services > > + targeting the > > locality of each network. > > > > & > > > > & increased freedoms of the participants in those networks > > > > & alternative approaches to ownership (commons and sharing) > > > > & increases in the capacity for individuals to exercise Digital Human > Rights, > > > > & fulfilling the needs for the decentralized decisions making processes > about > > network design, use, growth... > > > This is the current (improved) version: > > 4.2. Goals and motivation > > Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the > underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and usage > hurdles: > > o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end > user, or both). > > o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional > carrier-based financing). > > o Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network > administration). > > o Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimentation and > teaching. > > o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in > general; relevance, etc.) > > o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities). > > o Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic > reasons. > > o Becoming an active participant in the deployment and management of > a real and operational network. > > o Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality > guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, > etc. > > o Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and > other extreme situations. > > > > > > 4.4. Technologies employed > > > > ... > > > > How about LoRaWan technologies? (I am not a fan, but maybe it has to be > > mentioned) > > > Can you provide an example of a real AN using it? > > Thanks, > > Jose > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > --=20 Professor Ermanno Pietrosemoli Telecommunications/ICT for Development Laboratory (T/ICT4D) Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics Strada Costiera 11, Trieste 34151, Italy ermanno@ictp.it http://wireless.ictp.it ------- Presidente Fundaci=C3=B3n Escuela Latinoamericana de Redes (EsLaRed) www.EsLaRed.net --001a11c3acb2750c1e05305ca027 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
First I want to congratulate Jose for his patience= and hard work.

As for LoRa, the supported through= put is not enough for normal Internet access, the technology is meant for s= ensor applications where power consumption and long range are optimized at = the expense of reduced throughput, so they are out of the scope of this wor= k.

Best,

Ermanno

On Wed, Apr 13= , 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote= :
Hi,

> > 4.=C2=A0 Classification criteria
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The classification of Alternative Network Deployment= s, presented in
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 this document, is based on the following criteria: > >
> > 4.1.=C2=A0 Commercial model / promoter
>
> Please rename this section, and this concept, to "ownership"= .


As said before, I do not agree with the change. Some people may promote a n= etwork without owning it.

>
> Owning and ownership are mentioned later on, but not here - why?
>
> Also, some of these models are *not* _commercial_ at all.
>
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting >
> s/promoting/owning
>
> > an Alternative Network can be:
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 A community of users.
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 A public stakeholder.
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 A private company.
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Supporters of a crowdshared approach.
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 A community that already owns some infrastru= cture shares it with
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0an operator, which uses it for backhaul= ing purposes.
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 A research or academic entity.
> >
> > 4.2.=C2=A0 Goals and motivation
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Alternative Networks can also be classified accordin= g to the
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 underlying motivation for them,
>
> (remove)
> > e.g., addressing deployment and usage=C2=A0 hurdles:
> (/remove)
>
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Reducing initial capital expenditures (for t= he network and the end
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0user, or both).
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Providing additional sources of capital (bey= ond the traditional
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0carrier-based financing).
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Reducing on-going operational costs (such as= backhaul or network
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0administration)
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Leveraging expertise.
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital litera= cy; literacy in
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0general; relevance, etc.)
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Extending coverage to underserved areas (use= rs and communities).
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Network neutrality guarantees.
>
> Add, from 3.0
>
> + providing themselves with affordable access.
>
> + increase human capital and the creation of content and services
> + targeting the
> locality of=C2=A0 each network.
>
> &
>
> & increased freedoms of the participants in those networks
>
> & alternative approaches to ownership (commons and sharing)
>
> & increases in the capacity for individuals to exercise Digital Hu= man Rights,
>
> & fulfilling the needs for the decentralized decisions making proc= esses about
> network design, use, growth...
>
This is the current (improved) version:

4.2.=C2=A0 Goals and motivation

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the =C2=A0 =C2=A0underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment an= d usage
=C2=A0 =C2=A0hurdles:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network= and the end
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 user, or both).

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the tr= aditional
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 carrier-based financing).

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul = or network
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 administration).

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimen= tation and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 teaching.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; litera= cy in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 general; relevance, etc.)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and com= munities).

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altru= istic
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 reasons.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Becoming an active participant in the deployment and m= anagement of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 a real and operational network.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Various forms of activism, looking for network neutral= ity
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minim= ize control,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 etc.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0o=C2=A0 Providing an alternative service in case of natural di= sasters and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 other extreme situations.

>
> > 4.4.=C2=A0 Technologies employed
>
> ...
>
> How about LoRaWan technologies? (I am not a fan, but maybe it has to b= e
> mentioned)
>
Can you provide an example of a real AN using it?

Thanks,

Jose

_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



--
Professor Ermanno PietrosemoliTelecommunications/ICT for Development Laboratory (T/ICT4D)
Abdus Sala= m International Centre for Theoretical Physics =C2=A0Strada Costiera 11,=C2= =A0Trieste 34151, Italy
<= div>ermanno@ictp.it =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0http://wireless.ictp.it
-------
Presidente
Fundaci=C3= =B3n Escuela Latinoamericana de Redes (EsLaRed)
www.EsLaRed.net

--001a11c3acb2750c1e05305ca027-- From nobody Wed Apr 13 05:24:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978AD12D83A for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1xkLRSTIWOfu for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3996712D9B0 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id e190so67209661lfe.0 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=ll083F+fxM8ot6wqjs76Njt65zDxYb5ydWKzmgrfzEE=; b=BECCFZMKN6QJ6+t76X0zB2gSUrOvlWM2odmjlt7ZNvV+lG1piSiar5kCidVONfwGDu rMSYLlKagkR7OoZGVHA1Miito6muhnr4EqJVH2YOJVyYqU8D3gWiLDM5SlC0ZLn9vVsA Q4Ah5R9duyAZ6PB+Z638nPFsCvuMt2HRrGwT+T8Fx2/sG0DL1DGuu9HiY8ECQjR4NNua UzDJjws542+w+lSw4SwVSj3xuvErKqnQCdJo15SANtUR7QMQKt2FTIM6OjWsIDD/V7lW e4PZdVm95VYQCdmB19DaKwX2zfND/hT8GqoFOEyKJNduNZjcAR9vEz6tJkJH4FcbyRCm UXUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ll083F+fxM8ot6wqjs76Njt65zDxYb5ydWKzmgrfzEE=; b=i/UAQl/qaRRXydXL3M41HgxYv1T+hmwXxUYIeI1ueuBXlLfmNRJMjaFf1Z3EDwpsbs soIqjemhRUtwIZoCZpxBfdRKC71tdb0c+966EPhxUQkYbXtOF9i+AJi48BT3s1oHP3Sm fXzskDVe0VoT4+o+YNuo4/w24c3rYeNWx4mR+XWJPeWXJNX+3JiOGpqVNTMlpWw6gelW PdAX89vHTkzPtGt5WbrEsih0FHqiAT35+6fakup0IU+7mHh/0IlVpLaKQa1CrB9x9RFy mE4jWbH1ZZMv8n5upHFAq3gDHgta/eoBboZ2v3WtWaLnS94yjrRd/t/Q04vYHhUsSApU GkOw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWFmzfgovshAw+XRHjnI1pA2BVNF/Z8fIqL21Z4XRxywCWhSmBve18mI9jvYrOzsgkQzcg6fW7RAK+qFA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.181.38 with SMTP id dt6mr3936347lbc.114.1460550286426; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.151.1 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:24:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:24:46 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3AKOXvuF8s0fXlMWl1Nqf5GBDcA Message-ID: From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan To: Jim Forster Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11361298ffcadf05305cdcf9 Archived-At: Cc: gaia , "Eric A. BREWER" , Mitar , Jose Saldana , Henning Schulzrinne Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:24:50 -0000 --001a11361298ffcadf05305cdcf9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Jim & Henning - I think Henning has raised an interesting & thought provoking question - how do we define rural? I agree - if you see in the UK and other "developed" countries - many multi billionaires live in rural areas - look at weybridge in the UK: http://www.hamptons.co.uk/forsaleoffice/weybridge/1599/ :) should we consider from a "network access" perspective areas like Weybridge as really rural - should rural be classified from an affordability angle? but in urban areas affordability is also an issue - so that leads me to maybe - we should have new classification probably not by geography but rather socio-economic status? regards On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster wrote: > (Perhaps covered already in the draft=E2=80=A6) > > Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies > a poorer economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas = in > the same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads, > water systems, grid power) than the metro areas. I think one of the > drivers for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat better > infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas. > > > On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne > wrote: > > Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is rumored > to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very differen= t > whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or > villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think > Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes > along rural streets in West Virginia.) > > One distinction is the average (or median) distance between network end > points. > > > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > --=20 Arjuna Sathiaseelan Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d --001a11361298ffcadf05305cdcf9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Jim & Henning -

I think Henni= ng has raised an interesting & thought provoking question - how do we d= efine rural?

I agree - if you see in the UK and ot= her "developed" countries - many multi billionaires live in rural= areas -
look at weybridge in the UK:=C2=A0http://www.hamptons.co.uk/for= saleoffice/weybridge/1599/=C2=A0

:)
<= div>
should we consider from a "network access" per= spective areas like Weybridge as really rural -=C2=A0

<= div>should rural be classified from an affordability angle? but in urban ar= eas affordability is also an issue - so that leads me to

maybe - we should have new classification probably not by geography = but rather socio-economic status?

regards

On 13 April 20= 16 at 02:37, Jim Forster <jrforster@mac.com> wrote:
(Perhaps= covered already in the draft=E2=80=A6)

Sometimes, espe= cially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies a poorer economi= c situation (average income per capita) than metro areas in the same countr= y, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads, water systems, gri= d power) than the metro areas.=C2=A0 I think one of the drivers for migrati= on to cities in developing counties is somewhat better infrastructure in ci= ties than in the rural areas.


On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne &= lt;hgs@cs.columbia= .edu> wrote:

Defining "rural" is surprisingl= y difficult - the US government is rumored to have 50 definitions. From a n= etworking perspective, it's very different whether you connect isolated= rural dwellings, separated by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few h= undred residences. (In the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual farm= s in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes along rural streets in West Virginia.)
One distinction is the average (or median) dist= ance between network end points.



_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia




--
--001a11361298ffcadf05305cdcf9-- From nobody Wed Apr 13 05:36:35 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA21F12DBBF for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:36:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ulusofona-pt.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hrtxdIVeVqa0 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80BEC12DFF2 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id n3so75423009wmn.0 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:36:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ulusofona-pt.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:mime-version :to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to; bh=HY9ycMDpLvLAyypdfBWg7pAGBKkUGfCLqhiyh6a6i+Q=; b=vFoxmyfTtovwqw0ywXDh9SsFIoBRbJZU3jAG1YFsvPS3VOjzppFznPKpu8nyEZ96rZ tNiF3o6szGn5bo5gbZrU9hkBJ2J3X2sb+EAw1QShZ4JbYCw9GIwBrLR7rMeTTTt/m5OT j0P4jM1o12VJviO/QrkRRl9S9fvJbZdSd4eQ2hvf5kvfED8Xa4+9IUd1MSwEe2DtaMkX xohCspdXzPdR7nCz7iBYaWb/chS9mAT9Ns116y4fq0MMj7hS2afqbsHdK8hf69ygsPMZ Et/3Wj+lwNMbi9SLNg3CmhqX6nAZ0BfRyQvVpstt2UKrm9F/lfsfgbd/Pg86pAiizJUZ 1E/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to; bh=HY9ycMDpLvLAyypdfBWg7pAGBKkUGfCLqhiyh6a6i+Q=; b=NCcB8JmL9YopuENSMttuEgNPg8FB0XjaGXJICWqTyH70MnHyZq4lG/GULyyzW3V0f1 0n48EU6m2dWCdHubSFWCZQlvcyFaulQ+4IstRDeOQOZTpgG5T2gkxdzeLZVGz7fF6avH vcMyF6mGDrS6cLS2UZ9Kk5oike/o9Z+kh6Fx5RLsXldQDtFCKlFt4i57FSzOAx3qo5Dh SryzsSjJ6kbCtM3SAusHImAy+gjVnRVawg8ug/zQvkKAoUiHeWkxUnoPPG6IORo7QOWI pV4PDTcFJ8FyARbQ/x1MepIiibeiVhhSnGDb9uo4S3tUElll7UadhImWUTPEj0o3NWKd PVMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVoRArTf6l9DC8pwdXF8Wv/2VMl6TNxdrU9ezkxpRKbJ/aCykhp2q0Wv4mJPagDUugi X-Received: by 10.194.248.135 with SMTP id ym7mr9628605wjc.174.1460550988949; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux-spcm.site (sitivoip.ulusofona.pt. [193.137.75.156]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id a1sm38329418wje.43.2016.04.13.05.36.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <570E3D4B.1000501@ulusofona.pt> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:36:27 +0100 From: "Rute C. Sofia" Organization: COPELABS, ULHT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan , Jim Forster References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060207070202090605040206" Archived-At: Cc: gaia , "Eric A. BREWER" , Mitar , Henning Schulzrinne , Jose Saldana Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:36:34 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060207070202090605040206 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Arjuna, Henning, Jim, The rural area definition relates with density. In the USA, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas: * Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people; * Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people. “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. In Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_urban.pdf) Thinly populated area (alternative name: rural area) • More than 50 % of the population living in rural grid cells. So, defining rural as thinly populated areas is relevant (and then, defining "thinly" :)). Despite the fact that (some) rural areas may be sustainable, the fact is that rural areas, due to lack of density/capilarity should be treated as a specific type of "smart" communities... BR Rute On 04/13/2016 01:24 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:les > Hello Jim & Henning - > > I think Henning has raised an interesting & thought provoking question > - how do we define rural? > > I agree - if you see in the UK and other "developed" countries - many > multi billionaires live in rural areas - > look at weybridge in the UK: > http://www.hamptons.co.uk/forsaleoffice/weybridge/1599/ > > :) > > should we consider from a "network access" perspective areas like > Weybridge as really rural - > > should rural be classified from an affordability angle? but in urban > areas affordability is also an issue - so that leads me to > > maybe - we should have new classification probably not by geography > but rather socio-economic status? > > regards > > On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster > wrote: > > (Perhaps covered already in the draft…) > > Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely > implies a poorer economic situation (average income per capita) > than metro areas in the same country, and frequently reduced > general infrastructure (roads, water systems, grid power) than the > metro areas. I think one of the drivers for migration to cities > in developing counties is somewhat better infrastructure in cities > than in the rural areas. > > >> On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne >> > wrote: >> >> Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is >> rumored to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, >> it's very different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, >> separated by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred >> residences. (In the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual >> farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes along rural streets in West >> Virginia.) >> >> One distinction is the average (or median) distance between >> network end points. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > > > -- > Arjuna Sathiaseelan > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ > > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d > > > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia -- Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen, Rute Sofia ............................ COPELABS - Association for Research and Development in Cognition and People-centric Computing Senior Researcher/Director http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt/~rsofia http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/rute-sofia https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rute_Sofia --------------060207070202090605040206 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Arjuna, Henning, Jim,

The rural area definition relates with density. In the USA, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html
The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas:
  • Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
  • Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.

“Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.

In Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_urban.pdf)
Thinly populated area (alternative name: rural area)
     •    More than 50 % of the population living in rural
grid cells.

So, defining rural as thinly populated areas is relevant (and then, defining "thinly" :)). Despite the fact that (some) rural areas may be sustainable, the fact is that rural areas, due to lack of density/capilarity should be treated as a specific type of "smart" communities...

BR
Rute

On 04/13/2016 01:24 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:les
Hello Jim & Henning -

I think Henning has raised an interesting & thought provoking question - how do we define rural?

I agree - if you see in the UK and other "developed" countries - many multi billionaires live in rural areas -

:)

should we consider from a "network access" perspective areas like Weybridge as really rural - 

should rural be classified from an affordability angle? but in urban areas affordability is also an issue - so that leads me to

maybe - we should have new classification probably not by geography but rather socio-economic status?

regards

On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster <jrforster@mac.com> wrote:
(Perhaps covered already in the draft…)

Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies a poorer economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas in the same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads, water systems, grid power) than the metro areas.  I think one of the drivers for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat better infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas.


On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is rumored to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes along rural streets in West Virginia.)

One distinction is the average (or median) distance between network end points.



_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia




--


_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

-- 
Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Rute Sofia
............................
COPELABS - Association for Research and Development in Cognition and People-centric Computing
Senior Researcher/Director
http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt

http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt/~rsofia
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/rute-sofia
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rute_Sofia
--------------060207070202090605040206-- From nobody Wed Apr 13 06:32:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FA912DE0A for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:32:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.216 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oap5SmhkOH5t for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.uniroma2.it (smtp.uniroma2.it [160.80.6.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C704212DDF5 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth.uniroma2.it (smtpauth.uniroma2.it [160.80.6.47]) by smtp-2015.uniroma2.it (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8) with ESMTP id u3DDWNH8001854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:32:28 +0200 Received: from [192.168.100.157] ([160.80.103.191]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtpauth.uniroma2.it (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id u3DDWE7s027821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:32:18 +0200 To: gaia@irtf.org References: <010401d19562$31490e20$93db2a60$@unizar.es> From: Claudio Pisa Organization: CNIT Message-ID: <570E4820.1010503@uniroma2.it> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:22:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <010401d19562$31490e20$93db2a60$@unizar.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.6 at smtp-2015 X-Virus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #9: Services provided X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:32:36 -0000 Hello. On 04/13/2016 10:55 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > Hi, > >> Section 7.3., services provided >> >> What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the Internet > and >> networks in general? This looks pretty useless section which would not > inform >> anyone reading this draft of anything about alternative networks. >> >> If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized > services >> developed just for community/alternative networks: >> >> - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN >> - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org >> - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/ >> - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms >> - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries >> - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices >> - Community radio/TV stations I would add internal search engines to the list of services specifically designed for CNs. References: - wahoo and woogle in AWMN (article in German): https://www.woz.ch/1349/athens-internet-der-zukunft/wireless-woogle-und-wahoo - Ninuxoo in ninux.org: https://github.com/ninuxorg/ninuxoo And perhaps also community-network whois services could be added as CN-specific services or to the "Other facilities" subsection. Reference: https://github.com/ninuxorg/chininux cheers, Claudio -- Claudio Pisa, Ph.D. Researcher at CNIT - University of Rome "Tor Vergata" Research Unit Via del Politecnico, 1 - 00133 - Rome, Italy Phone: +39 067259 7773 E-mail: claudio.pisa@uniroma2.it From nobody Wed Apr 13 08:22:33 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7135912DE33 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:22:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zBaqGM81uh06 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D038312DE37 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3DFLs34021919; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:21:54 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: , "'Arjuna Sathiaseelan'" , "'Jim Forster'" References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> <570E3D4B.1000501@ulusofona.pt> In-Reply-To: <570E3D4B.1000501@ulusofona.pt> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:22:00 +0200 Message-ID: <00a601d19598$39ef80a0$adce81e0$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A7_01D195A8.FD7B0FC0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJcFa9VwPyCsm2ut4ZC7JMhs9L+wQJ/7c2CATpNG04B6njTLQJ2Kp2aAWMZug2eJxU94A== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Cc: 'gaia' , "'Eric A. BREWER'" , 'Mitar' , 'Henning Schulzrinne' Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:22:30 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01D195A8.FD7B0FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, a possible solution is to define =93urban=94 first (there are some definitions), and say that =93rural=94 is the opposite (according to = what Rute says). =20 What about this? =20 o Urban zone. The definition of "urban" does vary between countries, as shown in [UNStats]. For example, in the United States they are defined as "Agglomerations of 2 500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000 persons per square mile or more." In China the term "city" is proper of those designated by the State Council. In Liberia they are "Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants." In France they are "communes containing an agglomeration of more than 2 000 inhabitants living in contiguous houses or with not more than 200 metres between houses." In Guam, they are "agglomerations of 2 500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000 persons per square mile or more, referred to as "urban clusters"". =20 o Rural zone. The document will use this term as oposed to "urban". A definition of "rural " was proposed by G. P. Wibberley in 1972 [Wibberley]: "The word describes those parts of a country which show unmistakable signs of being dominated by extensive uses of land, either at the present time or in the immediate past. It is important to emphasise that these extensive uses might have had a domination over an area which has now gone because this allows us to look at settlements which to the eye still appear to be rural but which, in practice, are merely an extension of the city resulting from the development of the commuter train and the private motor car" [Clot]. =20 Jose PS: I think this would be more than enough. Everyone has an idea of = =93rural=94 in his mind, but we cannot aspire to arrive to a tight definition of = that term in an IRTF document ;-)=20 =20 De: Rute C. Sofia [mailto:rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt]=20 Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 13 de abril de 2016 14:36 Para: Arjuna Sathiaseelan ; Jim = Forster CC: gaia ; Eric A. BREWER ; Mitar ; Jose Saldana ; Henning = Schulzrinne Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. = Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios =20 Hello Arjuna, Henning, Jim, The rural area definition relates with density. In the USA, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas:=20 * Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people; * Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people. =93Rural=94 encompasses all population, housing, and territory not = included within an urban area. In Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_ur= ban .pdf) Thinly populated area (alternative name: rural area) =95 More than 50 % of the population living in rural grid cells. So, defining rural as thinly populated areas is relevant (and then, = defining "thinly" :)). Despite the fact that (some) rural areas may be = sustainable, the fact is that rural areas, due to lack of density/capilarity should = be treated as a specific type of "smart" communities... BR Rute On 04/13/2016 01:24 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:les=20 Hello Jim & Henning -=20 =20 I think Henning has raised an interesting & thought provoking question - = how do we define rural? =20 I agree - if you see in the UK and other "developed" countries - many = multi billionaires live in rural areas - look at weybridge in the UK: http://www.hamptons.co.uk/forsaleoffice/weybridge/1599/=20 =20 :) =20 should we consider from a "network access" perspective areas like = Weybridge as really rural -=20 =20 should rural be classified from an affordability angle? but in urban = areas affordability is also an issue - so that leads me to =20 maybe - we should have new classification probably not by geography but rather socio-economic status? =20 regards =20 On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster > wrote: (Perhaps covered already in the draft=85) =20 Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely = implies a poorer economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas = in the same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads, water systems, grid power) than the metro areas. I think one of the = drivers for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat better infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas.=20 =20 =20 On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne > wrote: =20 Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is = rumored to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes = along rural streets in West Virginia.)=20 =20 One distinction is the average (or median) distance between network end points. =20 _______________________________________________ gaia mailing list gaia@irtf.org =20 https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia =20 --=20 Arjuna Sathiaseelan=20 Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/ =20 N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d =20 _______________________________________________ gaia mailing list gaia@irtf.org =20 https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia --=20 Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen, Rute Sofia ............................ COPELABS - Association for Research and Development in Cognition and People-centric Computing Senior Researcher/Director http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt =20 http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt/~rsofia http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/rute-sofia https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rute_Sofia ------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01D195A8.FD7B0FC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, a possible = solution is to define “urban” first (there are some = definitions), and say that “rural” is the opposite = (according to what Rute = says).

 

What about = this?

 

=A0=A0 = o=A0 = Urban zone.=A0 The = definition of "urban" does vary = between

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 countries, as shown in [UNStats].=A0 = For example, in the United

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 States they are = defined as "Agglomerations of 2 500 or more

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 inhabitants, generally having population densities = of 1 000

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 persons per square mile or more."=A0 In China the term "city" = is

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 proper of those designated by the State = Council.=A0 In Liberia = they

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 are "Localities of 2 000 or more = inhabitants."=A0 In France = they are

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 "communes containing an agglomeration of more than 2 = 000

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 inhabitants living in contiguous houses or with not = more than 200

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 metres between = houses."=A0 In Guam, they = are "agglomerations of 2

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 500 or more = inhabitants, generally having population densities = of

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 000 persons per = square mile or more, referred to as "urban

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 clusters"".

 

=A0=A0 = o=A0 = Rural zone.=A0 The = document will use this term as oposed to = "urban".

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A definition of = "rural " was proposed by G.=A0 P.=A0 Wibberley in 1972

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 [Wibberley]: "The word describes those parts = of a country which

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 show unmistakable signs of being dominated by = extensive uses of

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 land, either at the present time or in the = immediate past.=A0 It = is

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 important to emphasise = that these extensive uses might have had a

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 domination over an area which has now gone because = this allows us

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 to look at settlements which to the eye still = appear to be rural

=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0but = which, in practice, are merely an extension of the = city

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 resulting from the development of the commuter = train and the

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 private motor car" = [Clot].

 

Jose<= /p>

PS: I think this would = be more than enough. Everyone has an idea of “rural” in his = mind, but we cannot aspire to arrive to a tight definition of that term = in an IRTF document ;-)

 

De: Rute C. Sofia = [mailto:rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt]
Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 13 = de abril de 2016 14:36
Para: Arjuna Sathiaseelan = <arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk>; Jim Forster = <jrforster@mac.com>
CC: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>; Eric = A. BREWER <brewer@berkeley.edu>; Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>; = Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>; Henning Schulzrinne = <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Asunto: Re: [gaia] = draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question = #3. Typical scenarios

 

Hello Arjuna, = Henning, Jim,

The rural area definition relates with density. In = the USA, https://ww= w.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html
The Census Bureau = identifies two types of urban areas:

  • Urbanized Areas = (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
  • Urban Clusters (UCs) = of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 = people.

“Rural” encompasses = all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban = area.

In Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work= /2014_01_new_urban.pdf)
Thinly populated area (alternative name: = rural area)
     •    More = than 50 % of the population living in rural
grid cells.

So, = defining rural as thinly populated areas is relevant (and then, defining = "thinly" :)). Despite the fact that (some) rural areas may be = sustainable, the fact is that rural areas, due to lack of = density/capilarity should be treated as a specific type of = "smart" = communities...

BR
Rute

On 04/13/2016 01:24 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:les =

Hello Jim & Henning -

 

I think Henning has raised an interesting & thought = provoking question - how do we define = rural?

 

I agree - if you see in the UK and other "developed" = countries - many multi billionaires live in rural areas = -

 

:)

 

should we consider from a "network access" perspective = areas like Weybridge as really rural = - 

 

should rural be classified from an affordability angle? but in = urban areas affordability is also an issue - so that leads me = to

 

maybe - we should have new classification probably not by = geography but rather socio-economic = status?

 

regards

 

On 13 April 2016 at = 02:37, Jim Forster <jrforster@mac.com> = wrote:

(Perhaps covered already in the = draft…)

 

Sometimes, = especially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies a poorer = economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas in the = same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads, = water systems, grid power) than the metro areas.  I think one of = the drivers for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat = better infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas. =

 

 

On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> = wrote:

 

Defining = "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is = rumored to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very = different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by = miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the = US, think Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma = or homes along rural streets in West Virginia.) =

 

One distinction is the average (or = median) distance between network end points.

 


_______________________________________________
gaia = mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



 

-- =




_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
gaia@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/=
mailman/listinfo/gaia



-- 
Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/mit =
freundlichen Gruessen,
Rute =
Sofia
............................
<= pre>COPELABS - Association for Research and Development in Cognition and = People-centric Computing
Senior =
Researcher/Director
http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt
 
http://copelabs.ulusofona.p=
t/~rsofia
http://www.mendeley.=
com/profiles/rute-sofia
https://www.rese=
archgate.net/profile/Rute_Sofia
------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01D195A8.FD7B0FC0-- From nobody Wed Apr 13 08:33:12 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7336112E35B for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:33:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lf4JQtP1NvH for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 320D412E308 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3DFX0ZY028937; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:33:01 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" References: <005601d194c4$c7894ce0$569be6a0$@unizar.es> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:33:04 +0200 Message-ID: <00bf01d19599$c588b220$509a1660$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQEcHz/3KEbJzcV7yV36544CtcjrJwKmpzO2AaYZpamg0Iz5IA== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Cc: 'gaia' Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #1: Motivations X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:33:10 -0000 Hi, > -----Mensaje original----- > De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Mitar > Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 13 de abril de 2016 11:11 > Para: Jose Saldana > CC: gaia > Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. = Mitar review, > question #1: Motivations >=20 > Hi! >=20 > Maybe this one can be expanded to include commons: >=20 > - Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality > guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, > building of commons, etc. When you say "building of commons", do you mean "Digital commons" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#Digital_commons . - Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, creating and sharing of "commons" (i.e. information and knowledge = resources that are collectively shared), etc. >=20 > Maybe one more can be added: >=20 > - Preferring alternative ownership model (co-owning, co-operating) > of the networking infrastructure. >=20 > For the second part, there is a whole movement these days about this, trying to > define it for services as well, not just infrastructure: >=20 > http://p2pfoundation.net/Platform_Cooperativism >=20 >=20 This would be the new version: 4.2. Goals and motivation Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and usage hurdles: o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end user, or both). o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional carrier-based financing). o Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network administration). o Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimentation and teaching. o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in general; relevance, etc.) o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities). o Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic reasons. o Becoming an active participant in the deployment and management of a real and operational network. o Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control, creating and sharing of "commons" (i.e. information and knowledge resources that are collectively shared), etc. o Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and other extreme situations. o Preferring alternative ownership model (co-owning, co-operating) of the networking infrastructure. Thanks again, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 08:55:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703CC12D648 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oj52mJYf0CPc for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A526212D5F5 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3DFtHOX009211; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:55:17 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" References: <005c01d194c6$ad5c5540$0814ffc0$@unizar.es> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:55:23 +0200 Message-ID: <00c101d1959c$e3b5e300$ab21a900$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQIOSaDfmO7/q61cEtO9CO9pG+uX+AH2tNBrnv7q+kA= Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Cc: 'gaia' Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #4. Classification X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:55:32 -0000 Hi again, > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Mitar [mailto:mmitar@gmail.com] > Enviado el: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 13 de abril de 2016 12:25 > Para: Jose Saldana > CC: gaia > Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. = Mitar review, > question #4. Classification >=20 > Hi! >=20 > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Jose Saldana = wrote: > > We tried to find some "orthogonal" axes (see > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00640.html) and > > we arrived to these: > > > > 4.1. Commercial model / promoter > > 4.2. Goals and motivation > > 4.3. Administrative model > > 4.4. Technologies employed > > 4.5. Typical scenarios > > > > They may not be "orthogonal", and not every combination of the > > criteria does make sense, but I think they are useful for = classifying the networks. >=20 > I would then suggest to add "ownership of equipment" or just = "ownership" to one of > these dimensions. I think "ownership of equipment" can be seen as a part of the = "commercial model / promoter". In fact, the text in "Commerical model / = promoter" already talks about ownership: " A community that already = *owns* some infrastructure shares it with an operator, which uses it for = backhauling purposes." What about this? 4.1. Commercial model / promoter The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting an Alternative Network can be: o A community of users. o A public stakeholder. o A private company. o Supporters of a crowdshared approach. o A community that already owns some infrastructure shares it with an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes. o A research or academic entity. The commercial model may have different implications regarding the ownership of the network equipment. In some cases, each of the users of the community maintains the ownership over the equipment they have contributed, whereas in others there is an entity who owns the equipment, or at least a part of it. >=20 > If we extend also goals and motivation with additional options, then I = think this is > closer to be able to cover community networks. >=20 > > The list of motivations has been expanded as you suggested. >=20 > Then we should probably add them as used by community networks. I don't understand the previous sentence. What does "them" refer to? = Sorry. >=20 > >> Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by = default. > > > > Can you provide a reference? Thanks! >=20 > Ubiquiti calls this technology airMax: >=20 > https://www.ubnt.com/broadband/ > https://dl.ubnt.com/AirMax_ppt.pdf >=20 > It is their proprietary WiFi extension. There is also an open source = project aiming to > provide this as well: >=20 > https://wiki.freebsd.org/WifiTDMA Thanks. I would not include the freebsd link, as it is not working yet. This would be the new version including this: 4.4. Technologies employed o Standard Wi-Fi. Many Alternative Networks are based on the standard IEEE 802.11 [IEEE.802-11-2012] using the Distributed Coordination Function. o Wi-Fi modified for long distances (WiLD), either with CSMA/CA or with an alternative TDMA MAC [Simo_b]. o Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) can be combined with Wi-Fi protocol, in a non-standard way [airMAX]. This allows each client to send and receive data using pre-designated timeslots. o 802.16-compliant (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] systems over non- licensed bands. o Dynamic Spectrum Solutions (e.g. based on the use of white spaces), a set of television frequencies that can be utilized by secondary users in locations where they are unused, e.g., IEEE 802.11af [IEEE.802-11AF.2013] or 802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011]. o Satellite solutions can also be employed to give coverage to wide areas. o Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some villages. >=20 >=20 > Mitar >=20 > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m Thanks, Jose From nobody Wed Apr 13 08:57:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE6712D967 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id knInu_ru3vRE for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D565612D99C for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3DFv6x1011958; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:57:07 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:57:12 +0200 Message-ID: <00c501d1959d$24c63a70$6e52af50$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJcFa9VwPyCsm2ut4ZC7JMhs9L+wQG0Zw0NnmVrmzA= Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Cc: 'gaia' Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:57:16 -0000 Hi, > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Mitar [mailto:mmitar@gmail.com] > Enviado el: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 13 de abril de 2016 13:27 > Para: Jose Saldana > CC: gaia > Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. = Mitar review, > question #3. Typical scenarios >=20 > Hi! >=20 > OK, for me it was just confusing categorization. Maybe because other > categorizations list one option per dot, here we list separate = dimensions for each dot > (urban/rural, south/north). Type checking does not match with other = categories. :-) > And then we use most of the time "urban and rural" anyway. :-) >=20 > BTW, WISPs can be both urban and rural. In San Francisco we have a = popular > WISP: >=20 > https://monkeybrains.net/wireless.html >=20 > Pretty urban use. There is nothing really in WISPs to make them rural = only. >=20 This is the current version 5.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ | Commercial | company | | model/promoter | | +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ | Goals and | to serve underserved areas; to reduce capital | | motivation | expenditures in Internet access; to provide | | | additional sources of capital | +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ | Administration | centralized | +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ | Technologies | wireless e.g. [IEEE.802-11-2012], | | | [IEEE.802-16.2008], unlicensed frequencies | +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ | Typical | rural (urban deployments also exist) | | scenarios | | +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ Table 2: WISPs' characteristics summary Thanks, Jose >=20 > Mitar >=20 > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana = wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >> Section 4.5, typical scenarios: > >> > >> I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any > >> network > > I know of > >> outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. > >> Community > > networks > >> maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they = grow > >> and > > spread > >> over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries. > > > > In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for > > rural areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the > > future a lot of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural > > deployments exist, so for me the classification makes sense. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Jose > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m From nobody Wed Apr 13 09:19:03 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0A012D15C for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:19:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YASROOrrSfz8 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0741712D5BC for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3DGIhGc013981; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:18:44 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: "'Mitar'" References: <006e01d194c9$063c0870$12b41950$@unizar.es> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:18:47 +0200 Message-ID: <00cd01d195a0$2892cb70$79b86250$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQKVl0TvyRo5YIKo/uHh+W86Bo8rkwKcTN5TnespxZA= Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Archived-At: Cc: 'gaia' Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #5: Community Networks X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:19:01 -0000 Hi, > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Mitar [mailto:mmitar@gmail.com] > Enviado el: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 13 de abril de 2016 12:35 > Para: Jose Saldana > CC: gaia > Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. = Mitar review, > question #5: Community Networks >=20 > Hi! >=20 > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Jose Saldana = wrote: > >> "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the > >> system > > may add > >> link segments to the network in such a way that the new segments = can > > support > >> multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those = of > >> the > > joined > >> network, including the capacity to further extend the network. = Once > >> these > > link > >> segments are joined to the network, there is no longer a meaningful > > distinction > >> between the previous and the new extent of the network." > >> > >> Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with > > "autonomous > >> system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-) > > > > This is true. I have added "individuals". >=20 > I think another important difference is the control aspect. One can = much easier add > new device to the community network than one is to add it to the = Internet BGP > peering. What about this? The fact of the users adding new infrastructure (i.e. extensibility) can be used to formulate another definition: A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the previous and the new extent of the network. The term "participant" refers to an individual, who may become user, provider and manager of the network at the same time. The addition of a new link in a Community Network does not imply any modification of the BGP [RFC4271] peering of the Internet. >=20 > > This is the new version. Feel free to make some improvement = suggestions: > > > > 5.1. Community Networks > > > > = +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ > > | Commercial | community = | > > | model/promoter | = | > > = +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+ > > | Goals and | reducing hurdles; to serve underserved = | > > | motivation | areas; network neutrality = | >=20 > We should expand this list with others we added to the overall "goals = and motivation" > dimension. New version: 5.1. Community Networks +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Commercial | community | | model/promoter | | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Goals and motivation | all the goals listed in Section 4.2 may | | | be present | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Administration | non-centralized | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Technologies | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012], optical fiber | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Typical scenarios | urban and rural | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ Table 1: Community Networks' characteristics summary >=20 > > new extent of the network. The term "participant" means an > > individual, who may become user, provider and manager of the = network > > at the same time. >=20 > Hm, there can also be organizations and companies participating with = nodes in the > network. I like the addition, so explanation, that the participant is = in multiple roles at > the same time, not just user/consumer, but they are probably not = necessary an > individual. >=20 > > infrastructure). In Community Networks, everybody keeps the > > ownership of what he/she has contributed. >=20 > I would suggest the following wording: >=20 > In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she = has > contributed, or contribute it to the network as a whole, commons, = loosing track of > the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of the = community > stewardship of said equipment. >=20 What about this? In Community Networks, profit can only be made by offering services and not simply by supplying the infrastructure, because the infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (mainstream Internet Service Providers base their business on the control of the infrastructure). In Community Networks, everybody usually keeps the ownership of what he/she has contributed, or leaves the stewardship of the equipment to network as a whole, commons, even loosing track of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of the community. >=20 > Mitar >=20 > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m Thanks, Jose PS: This would be the whole subsection: 5.1. Community Networks +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Commercial | community | | model/promoter | | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Goals and motivation | all the goals listed in Section 4.2 may | | | be present | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Administration | non-centralized | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Technologies | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012], optical fiber | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Typical scenarios | urban and rural | +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ Table 1: Community Networks' characteristics summary Community Networks are non-centralized, self-managed networks sharing these characteristics: o They start and grow organically, they are open to participation from everyone, sharing an open peering agreement. Community members directly contribute active (not just passive) network infrastructure. The network grows as new hosts and links are added. o Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership of the network itself is non-centralized and open. Different degrees of centralization can be found in Community Networks. In some of them, a shared platform (e.g. a web site) may exist where a minimum coordination is performed. Community members with the right permissions have an obvious and direct form of organizational control over the overall organization of the network (e.g. IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in the network). o The network can serve as a backhaul for providing a whole range of services and applications, from completely free to even commercial services. Hardware and software used in Community Networks can be very diverse, even inside one network. A Community Network can have both wired and wireless links. Multiple routing protocols or network topology management systems may coexist in the network. These networks grow organically, since they are formed by the aggregation of nodes belonging to different users. A minimal governance infrastructure is required in order to coordinate IP addressing, routing, etc. An example of this kind of Community Network is described in [Braem]. A technological analysis a community network is presented in [Vega_b], focused on technological network diversity, topology characteristics, evolution of the network over time, robustness and reliability, and networking service availability. These networks follow a participatory administration model, which has been shown effective in connecting geographically dispersed people, thus enhancing and extending digi