Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, characterization, technologies and architectures
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7962.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jose Saldana , Andres Arcia-Moret , Bart Braem , Ermanno Pietrosemoli , Arjuna Sathiaseelan , Marco Zennaro | ||
| Last updated | 2016-01-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments, conflict-review-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments, conflict-review-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments, conflict-review-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments, conflict-review-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments, conflict-review-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments | ||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | Awaiting IRSG Reviews | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | Mat Ford | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7962 (Informational) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03
Global Access to the Internet for All J. Saldana, Ed.
Internet-Draft University of Zaragoza
Intended status: Informational A. Arcia-Moret
Expires: July 17, 2016 University of Cambridge
B. Braem
iMinds
E. Pietrosemoli
The Abdus Salam ICTP
A. Sathiaseelan
University of Cambridge
M. Zennaro
The Abdus Salam ICTP
January 14, 2016
Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, characterization,
technologies and architectures
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03
Abstract
This document presents a taxonomy of "Alternative Network
Deployments", and a set of definitions and shared properties. It
also surveys the technologies employed in these networks, and their
differing architectural characteristics.
The term "Alternative Network Deployments" includes a set of network
access models that have emerged in the last decade. These networks
aim to bring Internet connectivity to people, using topological,
architectural and business models different from the so-called
"traditional" ones, where a company deploys or leases the network
infrastructure for connecting the users, who pay a subscription fee
to be connected and make use of it.
Several initiatives throughout the world have built large scale
Alternative 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 alternate networks.
The emergence of these networks has been motivated by a variety of
factors such as the reluctance of network operators to provide wired
and cellular infrastructures to rural/remote areas. In these cases,
the networks have self-sustaining business models that provide more
localized communication services as well as Internet backhaul support
through peering agreements with traditional network operators. In
other cases, networks are built as a complement to commercial
Internet access provided by "traditional" network operators.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
The present classification considers extant network models such as
Community Networks, which are self-organized and decentralized
networks wholly owned by the community; networks owned by individuals
who act as 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 finally
there are networks that provide connectivity by sharing wireless
resources of the users.
Different criteria are used in order to build a classification e.g.,
the ownership of the equipment, the way the network is organized, the
participatory model, the extensibility, if they are driven by a
community, a company or a local stakeholder (public or private), etc.
According to the developed taxonomy, a characterization of each kind
of network is presented in terms of specific network characteristics
related to architecture, organization, etc.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 17, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Traditional networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Alternative Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. General Considerations Regarding Alternative Networks . . . . 5
2.1. Digital Divide and Alternative Networks . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Urban vs. Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Gap between Demand and Provision of Communications
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Topology patterns followed by Alternative Networks . . . 8
3. Classification criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Commercial model / promoter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Goals and motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Administrative model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Technologies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Typical scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Classification of Alternative Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Community Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.1. Free Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Shared infrastructure model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.5. Testbeds for research purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Technologies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. Wired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.1. Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless
Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.1.1. 802.11 (Wi-Fi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.1.2. GSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.1.3. Dynamic Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Upper layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Layer 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1.1. IP addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1.2. Routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.2.1. Traditional routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.2.2. Mesh routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2. Transport layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1. Traffic Management when sharing network resources . . 21
6.3. Services provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.1. Intranet services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.2. Access to the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3.2.1. Web browsing proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
6.3.2.2. Use of VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
Several initiatives throughout the world have built 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
alternate networks. These networks constitute an alternative to
traditional network operator deployments.
There are several types of alternate deployments: Community Networks
are self-organized and decentralized networks wholly owned by the
community; networks owned by individuals who act 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 reluctance of network operators to provide wired
and cellular infrastructures to rural/remote areas [Pietrosemoli].
In these cases, the networks have self-sustaining business models
that provide more localized communication services as well as
Internet backhaul support through peering agreements with traditional
network operators. In other cases, they are built as a complement
and an alternative to commercial Internet access provided by
"traditional" network operators.
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." In line with this objective, this document proposes a
classification of these "Alternative Network Deployments". This term
includes a set of network access models that have emerged in the last
decade with the aim of bringing Internet connectivity to people,
following topological, architectural and business models that differ
from the so-called "traditional" ones, where a company deploys the
infrastructure connecting the users, who pay a subscription fee to be
connected and make use of it. The present document is intended to
provide a broad overview of initiatives, technologies and approaches
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
employed in these networks. References describing each kind of
network are also provided.
1.1. Traditional networks
In this document we will use the term "traditional networks" to
denote those sharing these characteristics:
- Regarding scale, they are usually large networks spanning entire
regions.
- Top-down control of the network and centralized approaches are
used.
- They require a substantial investment in infrastructure.
- Users in traditional networks tend to be passive consumers, as
opposed to active stakeholders, in the network design, deployment,
operation and maintenance.
1.2. Alternative Networks
The definition of an "alternative network" in this document is
negative: a network that does not have the characteristics of
"traditional networks".
2. General Considerations Regarding Alternative Networks
Alternative Network Deployments are present in every part of the
world. Even in some high-income countries, these networks have been
built as an alternative to commercial ones managed by traditional
network operators. This section discusses the scenarios where
Alternative Networks are deployed.
2.1. Digital Divide and Alternative Networks
Although there is no consensus on a precise definition for the term
"developing country", it is generally used to refer to nations with a
relatively lower standard of living. Developing countries have also
been defined as those which are in transition from traditional
lifestyles towards the modern lifestyle which began in the Industrial
Revolution. When it comes to quantify to which extent a country is a
developing country, the Human Development Index has been proposed by
the United Nations in order to consider the Gross National Income
(GNI), the life expectancy and the education level of the population
in a single indicator. Additionally, the Gini Index (World Bank
estimate) may be used to measure the inequality, as it estimates the
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
dispersion of the national income (see
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI).
However, at the beginning of the 90's the debates about how to
quantify development in a country were shaken by the appearance of
Internet and mobile phones, which many authors consider the beginning
of the Information Society. With the beginning of this Digital
Revolution, defining development based on Industrial Society concepts
started to be challenged, and links between digital development and
its impact on human development started to flourish. The following
dimensions are considered to be meaningful when measuring the digital
development state of a country: infrastructures (availability and
affordability); ICT (Information and Communications Technology)
sector (human capital and technological industry); digital literacy;
legal and regulatory framework; and content and services. A lack of
digital development in one or more of these dimensions is what has
been referred as the Digital Divide. This divide is a new vector of
inequality which - as occurred during the Industrial Revolution - may
generate progress, but may create economic poverty and exclusion at
the same time. The Digital Divide is considered to be a consequence
of other socio-economic divides, while, at the same time, a reason
for their rise.
In this context, the so-called "developing countries", in order not
to be left behind by this incipient digital revolution, motivated the
World Summit of the Information Society, which aimed at achieving "a
people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information
Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share
information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and
peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their
sustainable development and improving their quality of life" [WSIS],
and called upon "governments, private sector, civil society and
international organizations" to actively engage to accomplish it
[WSIS].
Most efforts from governments and international organizations
initially focused on improving and extending the existing
infrastructure in order not to leave their population behind. As an
example, one of the goals of the Digital Agenda for Europe [DAE] is
"to increase regular internet usage from 60% to 75% by 2015, and from
41% to 60% among disadvantaged people."
Universal Access and Service plans have taken different forms in
different countries over the years, with very uneven success rates,
but in most cases inadequate to the scale of the problem. Given this
incapacity to solve the problem, some governments included Universal
Service and Access obligations on mobile network operators when
liberalizing the telecommunications market. In combination with the
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
overwhelming and unexpected uptake of mobile phones by poor people,
this has mitigated the low access indicators existing in many
developing countries at the beginning of the 90s [Rendon].
Although the contribution made by mobile network operators in
decreasing the access gap is undeniable, their model presents some
constraints that limit the development outcomes that increased
connectivity promises to bring. Prices, tailored for the more
affluent part of the population, remain unaffordable to many, who
invest large percentages of their disposable income in
communications. Additionally, the cost of prepaid packages, the only
option available for the informal economies existing throughout
developing countries, is high compared with the rate longer-term
subscribers pay.
The consolidation of many Alternative Networks (e.g. Community
Networks) in high income countries sets a precedent for civil society
members from the so-called developing countries 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.
2.2. Urban vs. Rural Areas
The Digital Divide presented in the previous section is not only
present between countries, but within them too. This is especially
the case for rural inhabitants, who represent approximately 55% of
the world's population, 78% of them in developing countries.
Although it is impossible to generalize among them, there exist some
common features that have determined the availability of ICT
infrastructure in these regions. The disposable income of rural
dwellers is lower than those inhabiting urban areas, with many
surviving on a subsistence economy. Many of them are located in
geographies difficult to access and exposed to extreme weather
conditions. This has resulted in the almost complete lack of
electrical infrastructure. This context, together with relatively
low population density, discourages telecommunications operators from
providing similar services to those provided to urban dwellers, since
they do not deem them profitable.
The cost of the wireless infrastructure required to set up a network,
including powering it (e.g. via solar energy), is within the range of
affordability, if not of individuals then at least of entire
communities. The social capital existing in these areas can allow
for Alternative Network set-ups where a reduced number of nodes may
cover communities whose dwellers share the cost of the infrastructure
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
and the gateway and access it via inexpensive wireless devices. Some
examples are presented in [Pietrosemoli] and [Bernardi].
In this case, the lack of awareness and confidence of rural
communities to embark on such tasks by themselves can become major
barriers to their deployment. Scarce technical skills in these
regions have also been identified as a challenge to their success.
However, the proliferation of urban Community Networks, where
scarcity of spectrum, scale, and heterogeneity of devices pose
tremendous challenges to their stability and the services they aim to
provide, has fuelled the creation of robust 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.
2.3. Gap between Demand and Provision of Communications Services
Beyond the Digital Divide, either international or domestic, there
are many situations in which the market fails to provide the
information and communications services demanded by the population.
When this happens permanently in an area, citizens may be compelled
to take a more active part in the design and implementation of ICT
solutions, hence promoting Alternative Networks.
2.4. Topology patterns followed by Alternative Networks
Alternative Networks, considered self-managed and self-sustained,
follow different topology patterns [Vega]. 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. Moreover,
these networks are composed of a high number of heterogeneous devices
with the common objective of freely connecting and increasing the
network coverage. Although these characteristics increase the
entropy (e.g., by increasing the number of routing protocols), they
have resulted in an inexpensive solution to effectively increase the
network size. One example corresponds to Guifi.net [Vega] with an
exponential growth rate in the number of operating nodes during the
last decade.
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] may constitute a way to extend the user
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
capacity to the network. Other proposals like Virtual Public
Networks [Sathiaseelan_a] can also extend the service.
3. Classification criteria
The classification of Alternative Network Deployments, presented in
this document, is based on the following criteria:
3.1. 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.
3.2. 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.
o Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in
general; relevance, etc.)
o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities).
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
o Network neutrality guarantees.
3.3. Administrative model
o Centralized.
o Distributed.
3.4. Technologies employed
o Standard Wi-Fi.
o Wi-Fi modified for long distances (WiLD), either with CSMA/CA or
with an alternative TDMA MAC [Simo_b].
o 802.16-compliant systems over non-licensed bands.
o Dynamic Spectrum Solutions (e.g. based on the use of white
spaces).
o Satellite solutions.
o Low-cost optical fiber systems.
3.5. Typical scenarios
The scenarios where Alternative Networks are usually deployed can be:
o Urban.
o Rural.
o Rural in developing countries.
4. 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.
In some cases, real examples of Alternative Networks are cited.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
4.1. Community Networks
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Commercial | community |
| model/promoter | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Goals and | reducing hurdles; to serve underserved |
| motivation | areas; network neutrality |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Administration | distributed |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | Wi-Fi, optical fiber |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Typical scenarios | urban and rural |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Community Networks' characteristics summary
Community Networks are large-scale, distributed, self-managed
networks sharing these characteristics:
- They are built and organized in a decentralized and open manner.
- They start and grow organically, they are open to participation
from everyone, sometimes sharing an open peering agreement.
Community members directly contribute active (not just passive)
network infrastructure.
- Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership
of the network itself is decentralized and open. Community members
have an obvious and direct form of organizational control over the
overall operation of the network in their community (not just their
own participation in the network).
- 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]. These networks follow a
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
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.
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 (traditional 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.
Community Networks may also be called "Free Networks" or even
"Network Commons" [FNF]. The majority of Community Networks comply
with the definition of Free Network, included in the next subsection.
4.1.1. Free Networks
A definition of Free Network (which may be the same as Community
Network) is proposed by the Free Network Foundation (see
https://thefnf.org) as:
"A free network equitably grants the following freedoms to all:
Freedom 0 - The freedom to communicate for any purpose, without
discrimination, interference, or interception.
Freedom 1 - The freedom to grow, improve, communicate across, and
connect to the whole network.
Freedom 2- The freedom to study, use, remix, and share any network
communication mechanisms, in their most reusable forms."
The principles of Free, Open and Neutral Networks have also been
summarized (see https://guifi.net/en/FONNC) this way:
"- You have the freedom to use the network for any purpose as long as
you do not harm the operation of the network itself, the rights of
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
other users, or the principles of neutrality that allow contents and
services to flow without deliberate interference.
- You have the right to understand the network, to know its
components, and to spread knowledge of its mechanisms and principles.
- You have the right to offer services and content to the network on
your own terms.
- You have the right to join the network, and the responsibility to
extend this set of rights to anyone according to these same terms."
4.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Commercial | company |
| model/promoter | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Goals and | to serve underserved areas; to reduce CAPEX |
| motivation | in Internet access |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Administration | centralized |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wireless, unlicensed frequencies |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Typical scenarios | rural |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 2: WISPs' characteristics summary
WISPs are commercially-operated wireless Internet networks that
provide Internet and/or Voice Over Internet (VoIP) services. They
are most common in areas not covered by traditional telcos or ISPs.
WISPs mostly use wireless point-to-multipoint links using unlicensed
spectrum but often must resort to licensed frequencies. Use of
licensed frequencies is common in regions where unlicensed spectrum
is either perceived to be crowded, or too unreliable to offer
commercial services, or where unlicensed spectrum faces regulatory
barriers impeding its use.
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 [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
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
aimed at industrialized markets. Everylayer [Everylayer], launched
in 2014, is the first cloud-managed WISP service aimed at emerging
markets.
4.3. Shared infrastructure model
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Commercial | shared: companies and users |
| model/promoter | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Goals and | to eliminate a CAPEX barrier (to operators); |
| motivation | lower the OPEX (supported by the community); to |
| | extend coverage to underserved areas |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Administration | distributed |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wireless in non-licensed bands and/or low-cost |
| | fiber |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Typical | rural areas, and more particularly rural areas |
| scenarios | in developing regions |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Shared infrastructure characteristics summary
In conventional networks, the operator usually owns the
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.
When users already own deployed infrastructure, either individually
or as a community, sharing that infrastructure with an operator can
benefit both parties and is a solution that has been deployed in some
areas. For the operator, this provides a significant reduction in
the initial investment needed to provide services in small rural
localities because capital expenditure is only associated with the
access network. Renting capacity in the users' network for
backhauling only requires an increment in the operating expenditure.
This approach also benefits the users in two ways: they obtain
improved access to telecommunications services that would not be
accessible otherwise, and they can derive some income from the
operator that helps to offset the network's operating costs,
particularly for network maintenance.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
One clear example of the potential of the "shared infrastructure
model" nowadays is the deployment of 3G services in rural areas in
which there is a broadband rural community network. Since the
inception of femtocells, there are complete technical solutions for
low-cost 3G coverage using the Internet as a backhaul. If a user or
community of users has an IP network connected to the Internet with
some excess capacity, placing a femtocell in the user premises
benefits both the user and the operator, as the user obtains better
coverage and the operator does not have to support the cost of the
backhaul infrastructure. Although this paradigm was conceived for
improved indoor coverage, the solution is feasible for 3G coverage in
underserved rural areas with low population density (i.e. villages),
where the number of simultaneous users and the servicing area are
small enough to use low-cost femtocells. Also, the amount of traffic
produced by these cells can be easily transported by most community
broadband rural networks.
Some real examples can be referenced in the TUCAN3G project, (see
http://www.ict-tucan3g.eu/) 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.
4.4. Crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
stakeholders
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Commercial | community, public stakeholders, private |
| model/promoter | companies |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Goals and motivation | sharing connectivity and resources |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Administration | distributed |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wireless |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Typical scenarios | urban and rural |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
Table 4: Crowdshared approaches characteristics summary
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
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
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]).
In the same way, some companies [Fon] develop and sell Wi-Fi routers
with dual access: a Wi-Fi network for the user, and a shared one. 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. 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. In some
cases traditional telecommunications operators collaborate with these
communities, by including the functionality required to create the
two access networks in their routers.
The elements involved in a crowd-shared network are summarized below:
- Interest: a parameter capable of providing a measure (cost) of the
attractiveness of a node in a specific location, at a specific
instance in time.
- Resources: A physical or virtual element of a global system. For
instance, bandwidth; energy; data; devices.
- The owner: End users who sign up for the service and share their
network capacity. As a counterpart, they can access another owners'
home network capacity for free. The owner can be an end user or an
entity (e.g. operator; virtual operator; municipality) that is to be
made responsible for any actions concerning his/her device.
- The user: a legal entity or an individual using or requesting a
publicly available electronic communications' service for private or
business purposes, without necessarily having subscribed to such
service.
- The Virtual Network Operator (VNO): An entity that acts in some
aspects as a network coordinator. It may provide services such as
initial authentication or registration, and eventually, trust
relationship storage. A VNO is not an ISP given that it does not
provide Internet access (e.g. infrastructure; naming). A VNO is not
an Application Service Provider (ASP) either since it does not
provide user services. Virtual Operators may also be stakeholders
with socio-environmental objectives. They can be local governments,
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
grass-roots user communities, charities, or even content operators,
smart grid operators, etc. They are the ones who actually run the
service.
- Network operators, who have a financial incentive to lease out
unused capacity [Sathiaseelan_b] at lower cost to the VNOs.
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.
4.5. Testbeds for research purposes
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Commercial | research / academic entity |
| model/promoter | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Goals and | research |
| motivation | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Administration | centralized initially, but it may end up in |
| | a distributed model. |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wired and wireless |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Typical scenarios | urban and rural |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 5: Testbeds' characteristics summary
In some cases, the initiative to start the network is not from the
community, but from a research entity (e.g. a university), with the
aim of using it for research purposes [Samanta], [Bernardi].
The administration of these networks may start being centralized in
most cases (administered by the academic entity) and may end up in a
distributed model in which other local stakeholders assume part of
the network administration [Rey].
5. Technologies employed
5.1. Wired
In many (developed or developing) countries it may happen that
national service providers decline to provide connectivity to tiny
and isolated villages. So in some cases the villagers have created
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
their own optical fiber networks. This is the case in Lowenstedt in
Germany [Lowenstedt], or some parts of Guifi.net [Cerda-Alabern].
5.2. Wireless
The vast majority of Alternative Network Deployments are based on
different wireless technologies [WNDW]. Below we summarize the
options and trends when using these features in Alternative Networks.
5.2.1. 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.
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).
5.2.1.1. 802.11 (Wi-Fi)
The standard we are most interested in is 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, as it
defines the protocol for Wireless LAN. It is also known as "Wi-Fi".
The original release (a/b) was issued in 1999 and allowed for rates
up to 54 Mbit/s. The latest release (802.11ac) approved in 2013
reaches up to 866.7 Mbit/s. In 2012, the IEEE issued the 802.11-2012
Standard that consolidates all the previous amendments. The document
is freely downloadable from IEEE Standards [IEEE].
The MAC protocol in 802.11 is called CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple
Access with Collision Avoidance) and was designed for short
distances; the transmitter expects the reception of an acknowledgment
for each transmitted unicast packet; if a certain waiting time is
exceeded, the packet is retransmitted. This behavior makes necessary
the adaptation of several MAC parameters when 802.11 is used in long
links [Simo_b]. Even with this adaptation, distance has a
significant negative impact on performance. For this reason, many
vendors implement alternative medium access techniques that are
offered alongside the standard CSMA/CA in their outdoor 802.11
products. These alternative proprietary MAC protocols usually employ
some type of TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access). Low cost
equipment using these techniques can offer high throughput at
distances above 100 kilometers.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
5.2.1.2. 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].
5.2.1.3. Dynamic Spectrum
Some Alternative Networks make use of TV White Spaces - a set of UHF
and VHF television frequencies that can be utilized by secondary
users in locations where they are unused by licensed primary users
such as television broadcasters. Equipment that makes use of TV
White Spaces is required to detect the presence of existing unused TV
channels by means of a spectrum database and/or spectrum sensing in
order to ensure that no harmful interference is caused to primary
users. In order to smartly allocate interference-free channels to
the devices, cognitive radios are used which are able to modify their
frequency, power and modulation techniques to meet the strict
operating conditions required for secondary users.
The use of the term "White Spaces" is often used to describe "TV
White Spaces" as the VHF and UHF television frequencies were the
first to be exploited on a secondary use basis. There are two
dominant standards for TV white space communication: (i) the 802.11af
standard [IEEE.802-11AF.2013] - an adaptation of the 802.11 standard
for TV white space bands and (ii) the IEEE 802.22 standard
[IEEE.802-22.2011] for long-range rural communication.
5.2.1.3.1. 802.11af
802.11af [IEEE.802-11AF.2013] is a modified version of the 802.11
standard operating in TV White Space bands using Cognitive Radios to
avoid interference with primary users. The standard is often
referred to as White-Fi or "Super Wi-Fi" and was approved in February
2014. 802.11af contains much of the advances of all the 802.11
standards including recent advances in 802.11ac such as up to four
bonded channels, four spatial streams and very high rate 256-QAM
modulation but with improved in-building penetration and outdoor
coverage. The maximum data rate achievable is 426.7 Mbps for
countries with 6/7 MHz channels and 568.9 Mbps for countries with 8
MHz channels. Coverage is typically limited to 1km although longer
range at lower throughput and using high gain antennas will be
possible.
Devices are designated as enabling stations (Access Points) or
dependent stations (clients). Enabling stations are authorized to
control the operation of a dependent station and securely access a
geolocation database. Once the enabling station has received a list
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
of available white space channels it can announce a chosen channel to
the dependent stations for them to communicate with the enabling
station. 802.11af also makes use of a registered location server - a
local database that organizes the geographic location and operating
parameters of all enabling stations.
5.2.1.3.2. 802.22
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 co-
existence 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.
6. Upper layers
6.1. Layer 3
6.1.1. 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.
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.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
6.1.2. 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
use a mesh protocol inside different islands and use traditional
routing protocols to connect these islands.
6.1.2.1. 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].
6.1.2.2. 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]. This is an advanced version of the BATMAN
protocol which is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the social
structure of Alternative Networks.
6.2. Transport layer
6.2.1. Traffic Management when sharing network resources
When network resources are shared (as e.g. in the networks explained
in Section 4.4), 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
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
bottleneck of the connection. This is the main concern of sharers,
having several implications. There should be an adequate Active
Queue Management (AQM) mechanism that implements a Lower-than-best-
effort (LBE) [RFC6297] policy for the user and protects 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.
6.3. 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.
6.3.1. Intranet services
Intranet services can include, but are not limited to:
- VoIP (e.g. with SIP).
- Remote desktop (e.g. using my home computer and my Internet
connection when I am away).
- FTP file sharing (e.g. distribution of software).
- P2P file sharing.
- Public video cameras.
- DNS.
- Online games servers.
- Jabber instant messaging.
- IRC chat.
- Weather stations.
- NTP.
- Network monitoring.
- Videoconferencing / streaming.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
- Radio streaming.
6.3.2. Access to the Internet
6.3.2.1. Web browsing proxies
A number of federated proxies may provide web browsing service for
the users. Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually
allowed in many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations.
6.3.2.2. 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. Acknowledgements
This work has been partially funded by the CONFINE European
Commission Project (FP7 - 288535). Arjuna Sathiaseelan and Andres
Arcia Moret were funded by the EU H2020 RIFE project (Grant Agreement
no: 644663). Jose Saldana was funded by the EU H2020 Wi-5 project
(Grant Agreement no: 644262).
The editor and the authors of this document wish to thank the
following individuals who have participated in the drafting, review,
and discussion of this memo:
Paul M. Aoki, Roger Baig, Jaume Barcelo, Steven G. Huter, Rohan
Mahy, Rute Sofia, Dirk Trossen.
A special thanks to the GAIA Working Group chairs Mat Ford and Arjuna
Sathiaseelan for their support and guidance.
8. Contributing Authors
Leandro Navarro
U. Politecnica Catalunya
Jordi Girona, 1-3, D6
Barcelona 08034
Spain
Phone: +34 934016807
Email: leandro@ac.upc.edu
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
Carlos Rey-Moreno
University of the Western Cape
Robert Sobukwe road
Bellville 7535
South Africa
Phone: 0027219592562
Email: crey-moreno@uwc.ac.za
Ioannis Komnios
Democritus University of Thrace
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Kimmeria University Campus
Xanthi 67100
Greece
Phone: +306945406585
Email: ikomnios@ee.duth.gr
Steve Song
Village Telco Limited
Halifax
Canada
Phone:
Email: stevesong@nsrc.org
David Lloyd Johnson
Meraka, CSIR
15 Lower Hope St
Rosebank 7700
South Africa
Phone: +27 (0)21 658 2740
Email: djohnson@csir.co.za
Javier Simo-Reigadas
Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieria de Telecomunicacion
Campus de Fuenlabrada
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
Madrid
Spain
Phone: 91 488 8428 / 7500
Email: javier.simo@urjc.es
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. Security Considerations
No security issues have been identified for this document.
11. Informative References
[Abolhasan]
Abolhasan, M., Hagelstein, B., and J. Wang, "Real-world
performance of current proactive multi-hop mesh
protocols", In Communications, 2009. APCC 2009. 15th Asia-
Pacific Conference on (pp. 44-47). IEEE. , 2009.
[Airjaldi]
Rural Broadband (RBB) Pvt. Ltd., Airjaldi., "Airjaldi
service", Airjaldi web page, www.airjaldi.net , 2015.
[Avonts] 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.
[Bernardi]
Bernardi, B., Buneman, P., and M. Marina, "Tegola tiered
mesh network testbed in rural Scotland", Proceedings of
the 2008 ACM workshop on Wireless networks and systems for
developing regions (WiNS-DR '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA,
9-16 , 2008.
[Braem] Braem, B., Baig Vinas, R., Kaplan, A., Neumann, A., Vilata
i Balaguer, I., Tatum, B., Matson, M., Blondia, C., Barz,
C., Rogge, H., Freitag, F., Navarro, L., Bonicioli, J.,
Papathanasiou, S., and P. Escrich, "A case for research
with and on community networks", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 68-73, 2013.
[Cerda-Alabern]
Cerda-Alabern, L., "On the topology characterization of
Guifi.net", Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing,
Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2012 IEEE 8th
International Conference on (pp. 389-396) , 2012.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
[DAE] European Commission, EC., "A Digital Agenda for Europe",
Communication from the Commission of 19 May 2010 to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A
Digital Agenda for Europe , 2010.
[Everylayer]
former Volo Broadband, Everylayer., "Everylayer",
Everylayer web page, http://www.everylayer.com/ , 2015.
[FNF] The Free Network Foundation, FNF., "The Free Network
Foundation", The Free Network Foundation web page,
https://thefnf.org/ , 2014.
[Fon] Fon Wireless Limited, Fon., "What is Fon", Fon web page,
https://corp.fon.com/en , 2014.
[Heer] Heer, T., Hummen, R., Viol, N., Wirtz, H., Gotz, S., and
K. Wehrle, "Collaborative municipal Wi-Fi networks-
challenges and opportunities", Pervasive Computing and
Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2010 8th IEEE
International Conference on (pp. 588-593). IEEE. , 2010.
[Heimerl] Heimerl, K., Shaddi, H., Ali, K., Brewer, E., and T.
Parikh, "The Village Base Station", In ICTD 2013, Cape
Town, South Africa , 2013.
[I-D.ietf-aqm-codel]
Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., and J. Jana,
"Controlled Delay Active Queue Management", draft-ietf-
aqm-codel-01 (work in progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-aqm-pie]
Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White, "PIE: A
Lightweight Control Scheme To Address the Bufferbloat
Problem", draft-ietf-aqm-pie-01 (work in progress), March
2015.
[IEEE] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE,
"IEEE Standards association", 2012.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
[IEEE.802-11AF.2013]
"Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local and
metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Part
11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
Layer (PHY) specifications - Amendment 5: Television White
Spaces (TVWS) Operation", IEEE Standard 802.11af, Oct
2009, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.11af-2013.pdf>.
[IEEE.802-16.2008]
"Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Broadband wireless
metropolitan area networks (MANs) - IEEE Standard for Air
Interface for Broadband Wireless Access Systems",
IEEE Standard 802.16, Jun 2008,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.16-2012.pdf>.
[IEEE.802-22.2011]
"Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local and
metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Part
22: Cognitive Wireless RAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies and
procedures for operation in the TV Bands", IEEE Standard
802.22, Jul 2011, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.11af-2013.pdf>.
[Lowenstedt]
Huggler, J., "Lowenstedt Villagers Built Own Fiber Optic
Network", The Telegraph, 03 Jun 2014, available at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/
germany/10871150/
German-villagers-set-up-their-own-broadband-network.html ,
2014.
[Mexican] Varma, S., "Mexican village creates its own mobile
service", The Times of India, 27 Aug 2013, available at
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/
Ignored-by-big-companies-Mexican-village-creates-its-own-
mobile-service/articleshow/22094736.cms , 2013.
[Neumann] Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "An evaluation of
bmx6 for community wireless networks", In Wireless and
Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob),
2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on (pp. 651-658).
IEEE. , 2012.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
[PAWS] Sathiaseelan, A., Crowcroft, J., Goulden, M.,
Greiffenhagen, C., Mortier, R., Fairhurst, G., and D.
McAuley, "Public Access WiFi Service (PAWS)", Digital
Economy All Hands Meeting, Aberdeen , Oct 2012.
[Pietrosemoli]
Pietrosemoli, E., Zennaro, M., and C. Fonda, "Low cost
carrier independent telecommunications infrastructure", In
proc. 4th Global Information Infrastructure and Networking
Symposium, Choroni, Venezuela , 2012.
[Rendon] Rendon, A., Ludena, P., and A. Martinez Fernandez,
"Tecnologias de la Informacion y las Comunicaciones para
zonas rurales Aplicacion a la atencion de salud en paises
en desarrollo", CYTED. Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia
y Tecnologia para el Desarrollo , 2011.
[Rey] Rey-Moreno, C., Bebea-Gonzalez, I., Foche-Perez, I.,
Quispe-Taca, R., Linan-Benitez, L., and J. Simo-Reigadas,
"A telemedicine WiFi network optimized for long distances
in the Amazonian jungle of Peru.", Proceedings of the 3rd
Extreme Conference on Communication: The Amazon
Expedition, ExtremeCom '11 ACM, 2011.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2309] Braden, B., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B., Deering,
S., Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., Minshall, G.,
Partridge, C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan, K., Shenker,
S., Wroclawski, J., and L. Zhang, "Recommendations on
Queue Management and Congestion Avoidance in the
Internet", RFC 2309, DOI 10.17487/RFC2309, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2309>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
[RFC3626] Clausen, T., Ed. and P. Jacquet, Ed., "Optimized Link
State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3626, October 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3626>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC6297] Welzl, M. and D. Ros, "A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort
Transport Protocols", RFC 6297, DOI 10.17487/RFC6297, June
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6297>.
[Samanta] Samanta, V., Knowles, C., Wagmister, J., and D. Estrin,
"Metropolitan Wi-Fi Research Network at the Los Angeles
State Historic Park", The Journal of Community
Informatics, North America, 4 , May 2008.
[Sathiaseelan_a]
Sathiaseelan, A., Rotsos, C., Sriram, C., Trossen, D.,
Papadimitriou, P., and J. Crowcroft, "Virtual Public
Networks", In Software Defined Networks (EWSDN), 2013
Second European Workshop on (pp. 1-6). IEEE. , 2013.
[Sathiaseelan_b]
Sathiaseelan, A. and J. Crowcroft, "LCD-Net: Lowest Cost
Denominator Networking", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review , Apr 2013.
[Sathiaseelan_c]
Sathiaseelan, A., Mortier, R., Goulden, M., Greiffenhagen,
C., Radenkovic, M., Crowcroft, J., and D. McAuley, "A
Feasibility Study of an In-the-Wild Experimental Public
Access WiFi Network", ACM DEV 5, Proceedings of the Fifth
ACM Symposium on Computing for Development, San Jose , Dec
2014 pp 33-42, 2014.
[Simo_a] Simo-Reigadas, J., Morgado, E., Municio, E., Prieto-Egido,
I., and A. Martinez-Fernandez, "Assessing IEEE 802.11 and
IEEE 802.16 as backhaul technologies for rural 3G
femtocells in rural areas of developing countries", EUCNC
2014 , 2014.
[Simo_b] Simo-Reigadas, J., Martinez-Fernandez, A., Ramos-Lopez,
J., and J. Seoane-Pascual, "Modeling and Optimizing IEEE
802.11 DCF for Long-Distance Links", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
MOBILE COMPUTING, 9(6), pp. 881-896 , 2010.
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
[Vega] Vega, D., Cerda-Alabern, L., Navarro, L., and R. Meseguer,
"Topology patterns of a community network: Guifi. net.",
Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
Communications (WiMob), 2012 IEEE 8th International
Conference on (pp. 612-619) , 2012.
[Village] Heimerl, K. and E. Brewer, "The Village Base Station", In
NSDR 2010, San Francisco, CA, USA , 2010.
[WiLD] Patra, R., Nedevschi, S., Surana, S., Sheth, A.,
Subramanian, L., and E. Brewer, "WiLDNet: Design and
Implementation of High Performance WiFi Based Long
Distance Networks", NSDI (Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 1) , Apr 2007.
[WNDW] Wireless Networking in the Developing World/Core
Contributors, "Wireless Networking in the Developing
World, 3rd Edition", The WNDW Project, available at
wndw.net , 2013.
[WSIS] International Telecommunications Union, ITU, "Declaration
of Principles. Building the Information Society: A global
challenge in the new millenium", World Summit on the
Information Society, 2003, at http://www.itu.int/wsis,
accessed 12 January 2004. , Dec 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Jose Saldana (editor)
University of Zaragoza
Dpt. IEC Ada Byron Building
Zaragoza 50018
Spain
Phone: +34 976 762 698
Email: jsaldana@unizar.es
Andres Arcia-Moret
University of Cambridge
15 JJ Thomson Avenue
Cambridge FE04
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0) 1223 763610
Email: andres.arcia@cl.cam.ac.uk
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments January 2016
Bart Braem
iMinds
Gaston Crommenlaan 8 (bus 102)
Gent 9050
Belgium
Phone: +32 3 265 38 64
Email: bart.braem@iminds.be
Ermanno Pietrosemoli
The Abdus Salam ICTP
Via Beirut 7
Trieste 34151
Italy
Phone: +39 040 2240 471
Email: ermanno@ictp.it
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
University of Cambridge
15 JJ Thomson Avenue
Cambridge CB30FD
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)1223 763781
Email: arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk
Marco Zennaro
The Abdus Salam ICTP
Strada Costiera 11
Trieste 34100
Italy
Phone: +39 040 2240 406
Email: mzennaro@ictp.it
Saldana, et al. Expires July 17, 2016 [Page 31]