Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, characterization, technologies and architectures
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-07
The information below is for an old version of the document.
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-07
Global Access to the Internet for All J. Saldana, Ed.
Internet-Draft University of Zaragoza
Intended status: Informational A. Arcia-Moret
Expires: December 3, 2016 University of Cambridge
B. Braem
iMinds
E. Pietrosemoli
The Abdus Salam ICTP
A. Sathiaseelan
University of Cambridge
M. Zennaro
The Abdus Salam ICTP
June 1, 2016
Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, characterization,
technologies and architectures
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-07
Abstract
This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative Network
Deployments" that emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing
Internet connectivity to people or for providing local communication
infrastructure to serve various complementary needs and objectives.
They employ architectures and topologies different from those of
mainstream networks, and rely on alternative governance and business
models.
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, networks that
provide connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users and
rural utility cooperatives.
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
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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 December 3, 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Mainstream networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Alternative Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Scenarios where Alternative Networks are deployed . . . . . . 7
3.1. Urban vs. Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Topology patterns followed by Alternative Networks . . . 9
4. Classification criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Entity behind the network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Governance and sustainability model . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Technologies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Typical scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Classification of Alternative Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Community Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Shared infrastructure model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. Rural utility cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.6. Testbeds for research purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
6. Technologies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Wired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1. Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless
Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1.1. 802.11 (Wi-Fi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1.2. Mobile technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.1.3. Dynamic Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Upper layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Layer 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.1. IP addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.2. Routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.2.1. Traditional routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1.2.2. Mesh routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2. Transport layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2.1. Traffic Management when sharing network resources . . 25
7.3. Services provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.3.1. Use of VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.3.2. Other facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
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 connections, following
topological, architectural, governance and business models that
differ from the so-called "mainstream" ones, where a company deploys
the infrastructure connecting the users, who pay a subscription fee
to be connected and make use of it.
Several initiatives throughout the world have built these large scale
networks, using predominantly wireless technologies (including long
distance links) due to the reduced cost of using unlicensed spectrum.
Wired technologies such as fiber are also used in some of these
networks.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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; networks that provide connectivity by sharing
wireless resources of the users; and finally there are some rural
utility cooperatives also connecting their members to the Internet.
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.
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.
1.1. Mainstream networks
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.
o They require a substantial investment in infrastructure.
o Users in mainstream networks do not participate in the network
design, deployment, operation, governance and maintenance.
o Ownership of the network is never vested in the users themselves.
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". Therefore, they may share some of the next
characteristics:
o Relatively small scale (i.e. not spanning entire regions).
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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.
o Ownership of the network is often vested in the users.
2. Terms used in this document
Considering the role that the Internet currently plays in everyday
life, this document touches on complex social, political, and
economic issues. Some of the concepts and terminology used have been
the subject of study of various disciplines outside the field of
networking, and responsible for long debates whose resolution is out
of the scope of this document.
o "Global north" and "global south". Although there is no consensus
on the terms to be used when talking about the different
development level of countries, we will employ the term "global
south" to refer to nations with a relatively lower standard of
living. This distinction is normally intended to reflect basic
economic country conditions. In common practice, Japan in Asia,
Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and
New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed"
regions or areas [UN], so we will employ the term "global north"
when talking about them.
o The "Digital Divide". The following dimensions are considered to
be meaningful when measuring the digital development state of a
country: infrastructures (availability and affordability),
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) 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" [Norris]. It should be noted
that this "Divide" is not only present between different
countries, but between zones of the same country, despite its
degree of development.
o "Urban" and "rural" zones. There is no single definition of
"rural" or "urban", as each country and various international
organizations define these terms differently, mainly based on
number of inhabitants, population density and distance between
houses [UNStats]. For networking purposes, the primary
distinction is likely the average distance between customers,
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
typically measured by population density, as well as the distance
to the nearest Internet point-of-presence, i.e., the distance to
be covered by "middle mile" or back haul connectivity. Some
regions with low average population density may cluster almost all
inhabitants into a small number of relatively-dense small towns,
for example, while residents may be dispersed more evenly in
others.
o Demand. In economics, it describes a consumer's desire and
willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service.
o Provision is the act of making an asset available for sale. In
this document we will mainly use it as the act of making a network
service available to the inhabitants of a zone.
o Underserved area. Area in which the telecommunication market
permanently fails to provide the information and communications
services demanded by the population.
o "Free Networks" [FNF]. A definition of Free Network is proposed
by the Free Network Foundation (see https://thefnf.org) as the one
that "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."
o The principles of Free, Open and Neutral Networks have also been
summarized [Baig] 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 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.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
* You have the right to join the network, and the responsibility
to extend this set of rights to anyone according to these same
terms.
3. Scenarios where Alternative Networks are deployed
Different studies have reported that as much as 60% of the people on
the planet do not have Internet connectivity [Sprague],
[InternetStats]. In addition, those unconnected are unevenly
distributed: only 31 percent of the population in "global south"
countries had access in 2014, against 80 percent in "global north"
countries [WorldBank2016]. This is one of the reasons behind the
inclusion of the objective of providing "significantly increase
access to ICT and strive to provide universal and affordable access
to Internet in LDCs (Less Developed Countries) by 2020," as one of
the targets in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [SDG],
considered as a part of "Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure,
promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster
innovation."
For the purpose of this document, a distinction between "global
north" and "global south" zones is made, highlighting the factors
related to ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), which
can be quantified in terms of:
o The availability of both national and international bandwidth, as
well as equipment.
o The difficulty to pay for the services and the devices required to
access the ICTs.
o The instability and/or lack of power supply.
o The scarcity of qualified staff.
o The existence of a policy and regulatory framework that hinders
the development of these models in favor of state monopolies or
incumbents.
In this context, the World Summit of the Information Society [WSIS]
aimed at achieving "a people-centred, inclusive and development-
oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access,
utilize and share information and knowledge. Therefore, enabling
individuals, communities and people to achieve their full potential
in promoting their sustainable development and improving their
quality of life". It also called upon "governments, private sector,
civil society and international organizations" to actively engage to
work towards the bridging of the digital divide.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
Some Alternative Networks have been deployed in underserved areas,
where citizens may be compelled to take a more active part in the
design and implementation of ICT solutions. However, Alternative
Networks (e.g. [Baig]) are also present in some "global north"
countries, being built as an alternative to commercial ones managed
by mainstream network operators.
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 bridge the digital divide by increasing human
capital and promoting the creation of localised content and services.
3.1. Urban vs. Rural Areas
The differences presented in the previous section are 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 [IFAD2011], 78% of them in "global south"
countries [ITU2011]. According to the World Bank, adoption gaps
"between rural and urban populations are falling for mobile phones
but increasing for the Internet" [WorldBank2016].
Although it is impossible to generalize among them, there exist some
common features in rural areas that have prevented incumbent
operators from providing access and that, at the same time, challenge
the deployment of alternative infrastructures [Brewer], [Nungu],
[Simo_c]. For example, a high network latency was reported in
[Johnson_b], which could be in the order of seconds during some
hours.
These challenges include:
o Low per capita income, as the local economy is mainly based on
subsistence agriculture, farming and fishing.
o Scarcity or absence of basic infrastructure, such as electricity,
water and access roads.
o Low population density and distance (spatial or affective) between
population clusters.
o Underdeveloped social services, such as healthcare and education.
o Lack of adequately educated and trained technicians, and high
potential for those (few) trained to leave the community
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
incentivized by better opportunities, higher salaries or the
possibility to start their own companies [McMahon].
o High cost of Internet access [Mathee].
o Harsh environments leading to failure in electronic communication
devices [Johnson_a], which reduces the reliability of the network.
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 Alternative
Networks [Baig] together with the raising of low-cost, low-
consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices, have
allowed and simplified the deployment and maintenance of alternative
infrastructures in rural areas.
3.2. Topology patterns followed by Alternative Networks
Alternative Networks, considered self-managed and self-sustained,
follow different topology patterns [Vega_a]. 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 and the reliability. 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 such example
is Guifi.net [Vega_a] which has had 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 and/or wireless mech networks, 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 capacity
to the network. Other proposals like Virtual Public Networks
[Sathiaseelan_a] can also extend the service.
4. Classification criteria
The classification of Alternative Network Deployments, presented in
this document, is based on the following criteria:
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
4.1. Entity behind the network
The entity (or entities) or individuals behind 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 the infrastructure and shares it
with an operator, who, in turn, may also use it for backhauling
purposes.
o A research or academic entity.
The above actors may play different roles in the design, financing,
deployment, governance, and promotion of an alternative network. For
example, each of the members of a community network maintains the
ownership over the equipment they have contributed, whereas in others
there is a single entity, e.g., a private company who owns the
equipment, or at least a part of it.
4.2. Purpose
Alternative Networks can be classified according to their purpose and
the benefits they bring compared to mainstream solutions, regarding
economic, technological, social or political objectives. These
benefits could be enjoyed mostly by the actors involved (e.g.,
lowering costs or gaining technical expertise) or by the local
community (e.g., Internet access in underserved areas) or by the
society as a whole (e.g., network neutrality).
The benefits provided by Alternative Networks include, but are not
limited to:
o Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities).
o Providing affordable Internet access for all.
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).
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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 Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and
other extreme situations.
o Community building, social cohesion and quality of life
improvement.
o Experimentation with alternative governance and ownership models
for treating network infrastructures as a commons.
o Raising awareness of political debates around issues like network
neutrality, knowledge sharing, access to resources, and more.
Note that the different purposes of alternative networks can be more
or less explicitly stated and they could also evolve over time based
on the internal dynamics and external events. For example, the
Redhook WiFi network in Brooklyn [Redhook] started as a community
network focusing more on local applications and community building
[TidePools] but it became widely known when it played a key role as
an alternative service available during the Sandy storm [Tech]
[NYTimes].
Moreover, especially for those networks with more open and horizontal
governance models, the underlying motivations of those involved may
be very diverse, ranging from altruistic ones related to the desire
of free sharing of Internet connectivity and various forms of
activism, to personal benefits from the experience and expertise
through the active participation in the deployment and management of
a real and operational network.
4.3. Governance and sustainability model
Different governance models are present in Alternative Networks.
They may range from some open and horizontal models, with an active
participation of the users (e.g. Community Networks) to a more
centralized model, where a single authority (e.g. a company, a public
stakeholder) plans and manages the network, even if it is (total or
partially) owned by a community.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
Regarding sustainability, some networks grow "organically," as a
result of the new users who join and extend the network, contributing
their own hardware. In some other cases, the existence of previous
infrastructure (owned by the community or the users) may lower the
capital expenditures of an operator, who can therefore provide the
service with better economic conditions.
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). It can work with either
CSMA/CA or an alternative TDMA MAC [Simo_b].
o Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA). It can be combined with a
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 TV 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, as proposed in the RIFE project (https://rife-project.eu/).
o Low-cost optical fiber systems are also used to connect households
in different places.
4.5. Typical scenarios
The scenarios where Alternative Networks are usually deployed can be
classified as:
o Urban / Rural areas.
o "Global north" / "Global south" countries.
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
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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.
5.1. Community Networks
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Entity behind | community |
| the network | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Purpose | all the goals listed in Section 4.2 may be |
| | present |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Governance and | participatory administration model: non- |
| sustainability | centralized and open building and maintenance; |
| model | users may contribute their own hardware |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012] (standard and non- |
| employed | standard versions), optical fiber |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Typical | urban and rural |
| scenarios | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
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 participation 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
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).
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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
and customized, 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. Several examples of Community Networks are
described in [Braem]. A technological analysis of 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 to be effective in connecting geographically dispersed
people, thus enhancing and extending digital Internet rights.
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.
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 the network as a whole, (the commons), even
loosing track of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in
favor of the community.
The majority of Community Networks comply with the definition of Free
Network, included in Section 2.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
5.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Entity behind | company |
| the network | |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Purpose | to serve underserved areas; to reduce capital |
| | expenditures in Internet access; to provide |
| | additional sources of capital |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Governance and | operated by a company that provides the |
| sustainability | equipment; centralized administration |
| model | |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wireless e.g. [IEEE.802-11-2012], |
| employed | [IEEE.802-16.2008], unlicensed frequencies |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Typical | rural (urban deployments also exist) |
| scenarios | |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
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 mainstream 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] 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].
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
5.3. Shared infrastructure model
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Entity behind | shared: companies and users |
| the network | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Purpose | to eliminate a capital expenditures barrier (to |
| | operators); lower the operating expenses |
| | (supported by the community); to extend coverage |
| | to underserved areas |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Governance and | the community rents the existing infrastructure |
| sustainability | to an operator |
| model | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wireless in non-licensed bands, [WiLD] and/or |
| employed | low-cost fiber, mobile femtocells |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Typical | rural areas, and more particularly rural areas |
| scenarios | in "global south" regions |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Shared infrastructure characteristics summary
In mainstream 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.
One clear example of the potential of the "shared infrastructure
model" nowadays is the deployment of 3G services in rural areas in
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
which there is a broadband rural community network. Since the
inception of femtocells (small, low-power cellular base stations),
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, 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.
5.4. Crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
stakeholders
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Entity behind | community, public stakeholders, private |
| the network | companies, supporters of a crowdshared approach |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Purpose | sharing connectivity and resources |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Governance and | users share their capacity, coordinated by a |
| sustainability | Virtual Network Operator (VNO); different models |
| model | may exist, depending on the nature of the VNO |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012] |
| employed | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Typical | urban and rural |
| scenarios | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 4: Crowdshared approaches characteristics summary
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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].
The elements involved in a crowd-shared network are summarized below:
o 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.
o Resources: A physical or virtual element of a global system. For
instance, bandwidth; energy; data; devices.
o 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.
o 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.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
o 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, grass-roots user communities, charities, or even
content operators, smart grid operators, etc. They are the ones
who actually run the service.
o 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.
5.5. Rural utility cooperatives
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Entity behind the | rural utility cooperative |
| network | |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Purpose | to serve underserved areas; to reduce |
| | capital expenditures in Internet access |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Governance and | the cooperative partners with an ISP who |
| sustainability model | manages the network |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wired (fiber) and wireless |
| employed | |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Typical scenarios | rural |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Table 5: Rural utility cooperatives' characteristics summary
A utility cooperative is a type of cooperative that delivers a public
utility to its members. For example, in the United States, rural
electric cooperatives have provided electric service starting in the
1930s, especially in areas where investor-owned utility would not
provide service, believing there would be insufficient revenue to
justify the capital expenditures required. Similarly, in many
regions with low population density, traditional Internet services
providers such as telephone companies or cable TV companies are
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
either not providing service at all or only offer low-speed DSL
service. Some rural electric cooperatives started installing fiber
optic lines to run their smart grid applications, but they found they
could provide fiber-based broadband to their members at little
additional cost [Cash]. In some of these cases, rural electric
cooperatives have partnered with local ISPs to provide Internet
connection to their members [Carlson]. More information about these
utilities and their management can be found in [NewMexico] and
[Mitchell].
5.6. Testbeds for research purposes
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Entity behind | research / academic entity |
| the network | |
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Purpose | research |
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Governance and | the management is initially coordinated by the |
| sustainability | research entity, but it may end up in a |
| model | different model |
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wired and wireless |
| employed | |
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Typical | urban and rural |
| scenarios | |
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 6: 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
non-centralized model in which other local stakeholders assume part
of the network administration [Rey].
6. Technologies employed
6.1. Wired
In many ("global north" or "global south") 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 their own optical fiber networks. This is the case in
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
Lowenstedt in Germany [Lowenstedt], or some parts of Guifi.net
[Cerda-Alabern].
6.2. 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.
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, they 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,
such as e.g. the European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI).
6.2.1.1. 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 December 3, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
Different specifications of 802.11 operate in different frequency
bands. 802.11b/g/n operates in 2.4 GHz, but 802.11a/n/ac operates in
5GHz. This fact is used in some Community Networks in order to
separate ordinary and "backbone" nodes:
o Typical routers running mesh firmware in homes, offices, public
spaces operate on 2.4 GHz.
o Special routers running mesh firmware as well, but broadcasting
and receiving on the 5 GHz band are used in point-to-point
connections only. They are helpful to create a "backbone" on the
network that can both connect neighborhoods to one another when
reasonable connections with 2.4 GHz Nodes are not possible, and
ensure that users of 2.4 GHz nodes are within a few hops to strong
and stable connections to the rest of the network.
6.2.1.2. Mobile technologies
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 projects
such as OpenBTS (http://openbts.org) or OpenBSC
(http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac/) have created an ecosystem with the
participation of several companies as e.g. [Rangenetworks],
[Endaga], [YateBTS]. This enables deployments of voice, SMS and
Internet services over alternative networks with an IP-based
backhaul.
Internet navigation is usually restricted to relatively low bit rates
(see e.g. [Osmocom]). However, leveraging on the evolution of 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards, a trend can be
observed towards the integration of 4G [Spectrum], [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 Wi-Fi, in terms of signal propagation
and, consequently, coverage. Other factors favorable to 3GPP
technologies, especially GSM, are the low cost and energy consumption
of handsets, which facilitate its use by low-income communities.
6.2.1.3. Dynamic Spectrum
Some Alternative Networks make use of TV White Spaces [Lysko] - 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
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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.
6.2.1.3.1. 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 1 km 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
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.
6.2.1.3.2. 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
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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.
7. Upper layers
7.1. Layer 3
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.
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.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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 customized versions of the
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626]. The
[olsr.org] open source project has extended the protocol with the
Expected Transmission Count metric (ETX) [Couto] and other features,
for its use in Alternative Networks, especially wireless ones. A new
version of the protocol, named OLSRv2 [RFC7188] is becoming used in
some community networks [Barz].
B.A.T.M.A.N. Advanced [Seither] is a layer-2 routing protocol, which
creates a bridged network and allows seamless roaming of clients
between wireless nodes.
Some networks also run the BMX6 protocol [Neumann_a], which is based
on IPv6 and tries to exploit the social structure of Alternative
Networks.
Babel [RFC6126] is a layer-3 loop-avoiding distance-vector routing
protocol that is robust and efficient both in wired and wireless mesh
networks.
In [Neumann_b] a study of three proactive mesh routing protocols
(BMX6, OLSR, and Babel) is presented, in terms of scalability,
performance, and stability.
7.2. Transport layer
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
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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.
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.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
o Local cloud storage services.
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 Community oriented portals (e.g. http://tidepools.co/).
o Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms.
o VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between
countries.
o Sensor networks and citizen science built by adding sensors to
devices.
o Community radio/TV stations.
Other services (e.g. Local wikis as https://localwiki.org used in
community portals) can also provide useful information when supplied
through an alternative network, although they were not specifically
created for them.
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.
Many community networks also use VPNs to connect multiple disjoint
parts of their networks together. In some others, every node
establishes a VPN tunnel as well.
7.3.2. Other facilities
Other facilities, such as NTP or IRC servers may also be present in
Alternative Networks.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
8. 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,
Aldebaro Klautau, Vesna Manojlovic, Mitar Milutinovic, Henning
Schulzrinne, Panayotis Antoniadis.
A special thanks to the GAIA Working Group chairs Mat Ford and Arjuna
Sathiaseelan for their support and guidance.
9. Contributing Authors
Leandro Navarro
U. Politecnica Catalunya
Jordi Girona, 1-3, D6
Barcelona 08034
Spain
Phone: +34 934016807
Email: leandro@ac.upc.edu
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
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
Steve Song
Network Startup Resource Center
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia
CANADA
Phone: +1 902 529 0046
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
10. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
11. Security Considerations
No security issues have been identified for this document.
12. Informative References
[Airjaldi]
Rural Broadband (RBB) Pvt. Ltd., Airjaldi., "Airjaldi
service", Airjaldi web page, https://airjaldi.com/, 2015.
[airMAX] Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., airMAX., "airMAX", airMAX web
page, https://www.ubnt.com/broadband/, 2016.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[Avonts] Avonts, J., Braem, B., and C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire
based Examination of Community Networks", Proceedings IEEE
8th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile
Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob) pp. 8-15,
2013.
[Baig] Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., and L. Navarro,
"guifi.net, a crowdsourced network infrastructure held in
common", Computer Networks, vol. 90, no. C, pp. 150-165,
Oct. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009, 2015.
[Barz] Barz, C., Fuchs, C., Kirchhoff, J., Niewiejska, J., and H.
Rogge, "OLSRv2 for Community Networks", Comput. Netw. 93,
P2 (December 2015),
324-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.022,
2015.
[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.
[Brewer] Brewer, E., Demmer, M., Du, B., Ho, M., Kam, M.,
Nedevschi, S., Pal, J., Patra, R., Surana, S., and K.
Fall, "The Case for Technology in Developing Regions",
IEEE Computer vol. 38, no. 6 pp. 25-38, 2005.
[Carlson] Carlson, S. and C. Mitchell, "RS Fiber: Fertile Fields for
New Rural Internet Cooperative", ILSR, Institute for Local
Self-Reliance, Next Century Cities, https://ilsr.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/rs-fiber-report-
2016.pdf, 2016.
[Cash] Cash, C., "CO-MO'S D.I.Y. model for building broadband",
RE Magazine and ECT.coop, National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association
(NRECA), http://remagazine.coop/co-mo-broadband/, 2015.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[Cerda-Alabern]
Cerda-Alabern, L., "On the topology characterization of
Guifi.net", Proceedings IEEE 8th International Conference
onWireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
Communications (WiMob) pp. 389-396, 2012.
[Couto] De Couto, D., Aguayo, D., Bicket, J., and R. Morris, "A
high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless
routing", Wireless Networks, 11(4), 419-434, 2005.
[Endaga] Tech, FierceWireless., "Endaga raises $1.2M to help it
bring cellular to remote villages", FierceWireless tech
news, http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/endaga-
raises-12m-help-it-bring-cellular-remote-
villages/2014-12-03, 2014.
[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.
[GAIA] Internet Research Task Force, IRTF., "Charter: Global
Access to the Internet for All Research Group GAIA",
available at https://irtf.org/gaia, 2016.
[Heer] Heer, T., Hummen, R., Viol, N., Wirtz, H., Gotz, S., and
K. Wehrle, "Collaborative municipal Wi-Fi networks-
challenges and opportunities", 8th IEEE International
Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications
Workshops (PERCOM Workshops) pp. 588-593, 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. Iyengar,
"Controlled Delay Active Queue Management", draft-ietf-
aqm-codel-02 (work in progress), December 2015.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[I-D.ietf-aqm-pie]
Pan, R., Natarajan, P., and F. Baker, "PIE: A Lightweight
Control Scheme To Address the Bufferbloat Problem", draft-
ietf-aqm-pie-03 (work in progress), November 2015.
[IEEE] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE,
"IEEE Standards association", 2012.
[IEEE.802-11-2012]
"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", IEEE Standard 802.11-2012,
2012, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.11-2012.pdf>.
[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/802.22.2-2012.pdf>.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[IFAD2011]
International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD.,
"Rural Poverty Report 2011, International Fund for
Agricultural Development", Ed. Roma, Italia Nov, 2011.
[InternetStats]
InternetWorldStats, IWS., "World Internet Users and 2015
Population Stats", Accessed
2016, http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm, 2015.
[ITU2011] International Telecommunication Union, ITU., "ITU, World
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database", Accessed
2016, http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/, 2011.
[Johnson_a]
Johnson, D. and K. Roux, "Building Rural Wireless
Networks: Lessons Learnt and Future Directions", WiNS-
DR'08 pp. 17-22, 2008.
[Johnson_b]
Johnson, D., Pejovic, V., Belding, E., and G. van Stam,
"Traffic Characterization and Internet Usage in Rural
Africa", In Proceedings of the 20th international
conference companion on World wide web pp. 493-502. ACM,
2011.
[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.
[Lysko] Lysko, A., Masonta, M., Mofolo, M., Mfupe, L., Montsi, L.,
Johnson, D., Mekuria, F., Ngwenya, D., Ntlatlapa, N.,
Hart, A., Harding, C., and A. Lee, "First large TV white
spaces trial in South Africa: A brief overview", In
Proceedings of the IEEE 6th international conference on
Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems pp.
407-414, 2014.
[Mathee] Mathee, K., Mweemba, G., Pais, A., Stam, V., and M.
Rijken, "Bringing Internet connectivity to rural Zambia
using a collaborative approach", International Conference
on Information and Communication Technologies and
Development (ICTD 2007) pp. 1-12, 2007, 2007.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[McMahon] McMahon, R., Gurstein, M., Beaton, B., Donnell, S., and T.
Whiteducke, "Making Information Technologies Work at the
end of the Road", Journal of Information Policy vol. 4,
pp. 250-269, 2014, 2014.
[Meraki] "Meraki", Meraki web page, https://www.meraki.com/, 2016.
[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.
[Mitchell]
Mitchell, C., "Broadband at the Speed of Light: How Three
Communities Built Next-Generation Networks", ILSR,
Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Available at
http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/
muni-bb-speed-light.pdf, 2012.
[Neumann_a]
Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "An evaluation of
bmx6 for community wireless networks", In IEEE 8th
International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing,
Networking and Communications (WiMob) pp. 651-658, 2012.
[Neumann_b]
Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "Evaluation of
mesh routing protocols for wireless community networks",
Computer Networks, Volume 93, Part 2, 24 December 2015, pp
308-323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.018,
2015.
[NewMexico]
The New Mexico Department of Information Technology, DoIT.
and CTC. Technology and Energy, "Broadband Guide for
Electric Utilities", Version 1, April 2015, available at
http://www.doit.state.nm.us/broadband/reports/
NMBBP_FiberGuide_ElectricUtilities.pdf, 2015.
[Norris] Norris, P., "Digital divide: Civic engagement, information
poverty, and the Internet worldwide", Cambridge University
Press , 2001.
[Nungu] Nungu, A., Knutsson, B., and B. Pehrson, "On Building
Sustainable Broadband Networks in Rural Areas", Technical
Symposium at ITU Telecom World pp. 135-140, July 2011.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[NYTimes] Gall, C. and J. Glanz, "U.S. Promotes Network to Foil
Digital Spying", April 20, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/
us-promotes-network-to-foil-digital-spying.html?_r=1,
2014.
[olsr.org]
"olsr.org", OLSR.org web page http://www.olsr.org/, 2016.
[Openair] Interface, OpenAir., "OpenAirInterface", OpenAir
Interface, 5G software alliance for democratising wireless
innovation, http://www.openairinterface.org/, 2016.
[OpenMesh]
"OpenMesh", OpenMesh web page http://www.open-mesh.com/,
2016.
[Osmocom] Cellular Infrastructure, Osmocom., "Osmocom Cellular
Infrastructure", GPRS bitrates , 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.
[Rangenetworks]
Networks, Range., "Range Networks", Range Networks web
page, http://www.rangenetworks.com, 2016.
[Redhook] WiFi, Red., "Red Hook WIFI, a project of the Red Hook
Initiative", Red Hook WIFI web
page, http://redhookwifi.org/, 2016.
[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.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC6126] Chroboczek, J., "The Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 6126,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6126, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6126>.
[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>.
[RFC7188] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing
Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood
Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs", RFC 7188,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7188, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7188>.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[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 IEEE 2013 Second European Workshop on
Software Defined Networks (EWSDN) pp. 1-6, 2013.
[Sathiaseelan_b]
Sathiaseelan, A. and J. Crowcroft, "LCD-Net: Lowest Cost
Denominator Networking", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review Volume 43, Number 2, April 2013,
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.
[SDG] United Nations, UN., "Sustainable Development Goalx",
United Nations, Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300, 2015.
[Seither] Seither, D., Koenig, A., and M. Hollick, "Routing
performance of Wireless Mesh Networks: A practical
evaluation of BATMAN advanced", Local Computer Networks
(LCN), 2011 IEEE 36th Conference on, Bonn, 2011, pp.
897-904. doi: 10.1109/LCN.2011.6115569, 2011.
[Shi] Shi, J., Gui, L., Koutsonikolas, D., Qiao, C., and G.
Challen, "Metropolitan Wi-Fi Research Network at the Los
Angeles State Historic Park", HotWireless '15 Proceedings
of the 2nd International Workshop on Hot Topics in
Wireless , Sep 2015.
[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.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[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.
[Simo_c] Simo-Reigadas, J., Martinez-Fernandez, A., Osuna, P.,
Lafuente, S., and J. Seoane-Pascual, "The Design of a
Wireless Solar-Powered Router for Rural Environments
Isolated from Health Facilities", IEEE Wireless
Communications vol. 15(3), pp. 24-30, June 2008.
[Simo_d] Simo-Reigadas, J., Municio, E., Morgado, E., Castro, E.,
Martinez-Fernandez, A., Solorzano, L., and I. Prieto-
Egido, "Sharing low-cost wireless infrastructures with
telecommunications operators to bring 3G services to rural
communities", Computer Networks, Volume 93, Part 2, 24
December 2015, pp
245-259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.006,
2015.
[Spectrum]
Laursen, L., "Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities
Build Their Own 4G Networks", Software-Defined Radio Will
Let Communities Build Their Own 4G Networks, 25 Nov 2015
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/softwaredefined-
radio-will-let-communities-build-their-own-4g-networks,
2015.
[Sprague] Sprague, K., Grijpink, F., Manyika, J., Moodley, L.,
Chappuis, B., Pattabiraman, K., and J. Bughin, "Offline
and falling behind: Barriers to Internet adoption",
McKinsey and Company, Tech. Rep. , 2014.
[Tech] Kazansky, B., "In Red Hook, Mesh Network Connects Sandy
Survivors Still Without Power", Monday, November 12, 2012
http://techpresident.com/news/23127/red-hook-mesh-network-
connects-sandy-survivors-still-without-power, 2012.
[TidePools]
Baldwin, J., "TidePools: Social WiFi, Parsons The New
School for Design", Diss. Master thesis
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94601219/
TidePools-Social-WiFi-Thesis, 2011.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[UN] United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), , "Composition of
macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical
sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings",
Country or area and region codes, Composition of regions
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#ftnc,
2013.
[UNStats] United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), , "Urban and total
population by sex: 1996-2005", Demographic Yearbook,
Table 6, notes
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/
dyb2005/notestab06.pdf, accessed Mar 2016, 2005.
[Vega_a] Vega, D., Cerda-Alabern, L., Navarro, L., and R. Meseguer,
"Topology patterns of a community network: Guifi. net.",
Proceedings IEEE 8th International Conference onWireless
and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications
(WiMob), pp. 612-619, 2012.
[Vega_b] Vega, D., Baig, R., Cerda-Alabern, L., Medina, E.,
Meseguer, R., and L. Navarro, "A technological overview of
the guifi.net community network", Computer Networks,
Volume 93, Part 2, 24 December 2015, pp
260-278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.023,
and http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/docs/analysis.pdf ,
2015.
[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 http://wndw.net, 2013.
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
[WorldBank2016]
The World Bank, WB., "World Development Report 2016:
Digital Dividends", Washington, DC: The World Bank,
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentSe
rver/WDSP/IB/2016/01/13/090224b08405ea05/2_0/Rendered/PDF/
World0developm0000digital0dividends.pdf ISBN:
978-1-4648-0672-8, 2016.
[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, available
at http://www.itu.int/wsis, Dec 2013.
[YateBTS] BTS, Yate., "YateBTS", Yate BTS web
page, http://yatebts.com/, 2016.
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
Bart Braem
iMinds
Gaston Crommenlaan 8 (bus 102)
Gent 9050
Belgium
Phone: +32 3 265 38 64
Email: bart.braem@iminds.be
Saldana, et al. Expires December 3, 2016 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Alternative Network Deployments June 2016
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 December 3, 2016 [Page 41]