Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #5: Community Networks

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:38:48 +0200

Hi,

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

> 
> "There is a shared platform (e.g.  a web site) where a minimum
coordination is
> performed.  This way, community members with the right permissions have an
> obvious and direct form of organizational control over the overall
operation of the
> network (e.g.  IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community (not just
their own
> participation in the network)."
> 
> This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community networks
with
> much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with
> IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible.
> 
> Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how
control over the
> routing of the network has anything with the existence of the shared
platform? In
> wlan slovenija network we also use a web shared platform, but that
platform does
> not control the network. It just helps in coordination. Network would
operate even
> without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about use
of IP space,
> and learning how to configure their nodes.
> 
> So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core
network's
> resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries,
> etc.) are managed.

The paragraph has been rebuilt. See the new version below.

> 
> "A Community Network is a network in which any participant in the system
may add
> link segments to the network in such a way that the new segments can
support
> multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of the
joined
> network, including the capacity to further extend the network.  Once these
link
> segments are joined to the network, there is no longer a meaningful
distinction
> between the previous and the new extent of the network."
> 
> Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with
"autonomous
> system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-)

This is true. I have added "individuals".

> 
> So what exactly is the property which differentiates community networks?
Maybe
> there is none. Maybe community networks are simply trying to (re)build the
Internet,
> but this time having infrastructure owned by participants, which are not
just
> consumers, but are participating.
> 
> I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and
that people own
> the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This should be more clearly
> explained. So it is not so much about technology in community networks,
but about
> who owns and controls equipment (people/users/participants), and who
coordinates
> the network growth (people/users/participants). The line between users,
providers,
> participants, people gets blurred.
I think all the definitions and characteristics given in the document may
provide a good idea of what a CN is.

> 
> "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has
> contributed.
> 
> Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for
backbone
> nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track ownership of
equipment,
> because they do not care about ownership if it is operating according to
common
> principles. And if it is not, it should not be in the network no matter
who owns the
> equipment.
"Usually" has been added.

This is the new version. Feel free to make some improvement suggestions:

5.1.  Community Networks

   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | Commercial         | community                                    |
   | model/promoter     |                                              |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | Goals and          | reducing hurdles; to serve underserved       |
   | motivation         | areas; network neutrality                    |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | Administration     | non-centralized                              |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | Technologies       | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012], optical fiber      |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | Typical scenarios  | urban and rural                              |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+

           Table 1: Community Networks' characteristics summary

   Community Networks are non-centralized, self-managed networks sharing
   these characteristics:

   o  They start and grow organically, they are open to participation
      from everyone, sharing an open peering agreement.  Community
      members directly contribute active (not just passive) network
      infrastructure.  The network grows as new hosts and links are
      added.

   o  Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership
      of the network itself is non-centralized and open.  Different
      degrees of centralization can be found in Community Networks.  In
      some of them, a shared platform (e.g. a web site) may exist where
      a minimum coordination is performed.  Community members with the
      right permissions have an obvious and direct form of
      organizational control over the overall organization of the
      network (e.g.  IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community
      (not just their own participation in the network).

   o  The network can serve as a backhaul for providing a whole range of
      services and applications, from completely free to even commercial
      services.

   Hardware and software used in Community Networks can be very diverse,
   even inside one network.  A Community Network can have both wired and
   wireless links.  Multiple routing protocols or network topology
   management systems may coexist in the network.

   These networks grow organically, since they are formed by the
   aggregation of nodes belonging to different users.  A minimal
   governance infrastructure is required in order to coordinate IP
   addressing, routing, etc.  An example of this kind of Community
   Network is described in [Braem].  A technological analysis a
   community network is presented in [Vega_b], focused on technological
   network diversity, topology characteristics, evolution of the network
   over time, robustness and reliability, and networking service
   availability.

   These networks follow a participatory model, which has been shown
   effective in connecting geographically dispersed people, thus
   enhancing and extending digital Internet rights.

   The fact of the users adding new infrastructure (i.e. extensibility)
   can be used to formulate another definition: A Community Network is a
   network in which any participant in the system may add link segments
   to the network in such a way that the new segments can support
   multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of
   the joined network, including the capacity to further extend the
   network.  Once these link segments are joined to the network, there
   is no longer a meaningful distinction between the previous and the
   new extent of the network.  The term "participant" means an
   individual, who may become user, provider and manager of the network
   at the same time.

   In Community Networks, profit can only be made by offering services
   and not simply by supplying the infrastructure, because the
   infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (mainstream Internet
   Service Providers base their business on the control of the
   infrastructure).  In Community Networks, everybody keeps the
   ownership of what he/she has contributed.

   The majority of Community Networks comply with the definition of Free
   Network, included in Section 2.

Best regards,

Jose

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:34:59 -0700

Hi!

> This is true. I have added "individuals".

I think another important difference is the control aspect. One can
much easier add new device to the community network than one is to add
it to the Internet BGP peering.

> This is the new version. Feel free to make some improvement suggestions:

We should expand this list with others we added to the overall "goals
and motivation" dimension.

>    individual, who may become user, provider and manager of the network

Hm, there can also be organizations and companies participating with
nodes in the network. I like the addition, so explanation, that the
participant is in multiple roles at the same time, not just
user/consumer, but they are probably not necessary an individual.

>    ownership of what he/she has contributed.

I would suggest the following wording:

In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she
has contributed, or contribute it to the network as a whole, commons,
loosing track of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in
favor of the community stewardship of said equipment.

Mitar

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

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:18:47 +0200

Hi,

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Mitar [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 12:35
> Para: Jose Saldana <[email-masked]>
> CC: gaia <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review,
> question #5: Community Networks
> 
> Hi!
> 
> >> the
> I think another important difference is the control aspect. One can much easier add
> new device to the community network than one is to add it to the Internet BGP
> peering.

What about this?

   The fact of the users adding new infrastructure (i.e. extensibility)
   can be used to formulate another definition: A Community Network is a
   network in which any participant in the system may add link segments
   to the network in such a way that the new segments can support
   multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of
   the joined network, including the capacity to further extend the
   network.  Once these link segments are joined to the network, there
   is no longer a meaningful distinction between the previous and the
   new extent of the network.  The term "participant" refers to an
   individual, who may become user, provider and manager of the network
   at the same time.  The addition of a new link in a Community Network
   does not imply any modification of the BGP [RFC4271] peering of the
   Internet.

> We should expand this list with others we added to the overall "goals and motivation"
> dimension.

New version:

5.1.  Community Networks

   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Commercial            | community                                 |
   | model/promoter        |                                           |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Goals and motivation  | all the goals listed in Section 4.2 may   |
   |                       | be present                                |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Administration        | non-centralized                           |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Technologies          | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012], optical fiber   |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Typical scenarios     | urban and rural                           |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

> Hm, there can also be organizations and companies participating with nodes in the
> network. I like the addition, so explanation, that the participant is in multiple roles at
> the same time, not just user/consumer, but they are probably not necessary an
> individual.
> 
> In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has
> contributed, or contribute it to the network as a whole, commons, loosing track of
> the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of the community
> stewardship of said equipment.
> 
What about this?

   In Community Networks, profit can only be made by offering services
   and not simply by supplying the infrastructure, because the
   infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (mainstream Internet
   Service Providers base their business on the control of the
   infrastructure).  In Community Networks, everybody usually keeps the
   ownership of what he/she has contributed, or leaves the stewardship
   of the equipment to network as a whole, commons, even loosing track
   of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of the
   community.

> Mitar

Thanks,

Jose
PS: This would be the whole subsection:

5.1.  Community Networks

   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Commercial            | community                                 |
   | model/promoter        |                                           |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Goals and motivation  | all the goals listed in Section 4.2 may   |
   |                       | be present                                |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Administration        | non-centralized                           |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Technologies          | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012], optical fiber   |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Typical scenarios     | urban and rural                           |
   +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

   These networks follow a participatory administration model, which has
   been shown effective in connecting geographically dispersed people,
   thus enhancing and extending digital Internet rights.

   The fact of the users adding new infrastructure (i.e. extensibility)
   can be used to formulate another definition: A Community Network is a
   network in which any participant in the system may add link segments
   to the network in such a way that the new segments can support
   multiple nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of
   the joined network, including the capacity to further extend the
   network.  Once these link segments are joined to the network, there
   is no longer a meaningful distinction between the previous and the
   new extent of the network.  The term "participant" refers to an
   individual, who may become user, provider and manager of the network
   at the same time.  The addition of a new link in a Community Network
   does not imply any modification of the BGP [RFC4271] peering of the
   Internet.

   In Community Networks, profit can only be made by offering services
   and not simply by supplying the infrastructure, because the
   infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (mainstream Internet
   Service Providers base their business on the control of the
   infrastructure).  In Community Networks, everybody usually keeps the
   ownership of what he/she has contributed, or leaves the stewardship
   of the equipment to network as a whole, commons, even loosing track
   of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of the
   community.

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:33:38 -0700

Hi!

>    does not imply any modification of the BGP [RFC4271] peering of the

This is getting stranger and stranger. There is not really any reason
why community network would not operate so that when new node connects
it auto-reconfigures some of its BGP peerings.

Anyway, I think the original text was better than this now. Old text
was at least redundant from my perspective, this now is adding invalid
claims. :-) Let's just leave it as it was. It describes Internet,
which community networks anyway are (a new generation of it). :-)

I like it.

>    of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of the

I like it.

> PS: This would be the whole subsection:

Maybe mentioning that it can be both standard and non-standard? So
community networks are probably the most open to hacking and changing
things to non-standard operations from all alternative networks. We
should convey that.

>    even inside one network.

Diverse and customized?

Otherwise I like it (pending possible category of ownership).

Mitar

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:47:57 +0200

Hi,

> De: gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Mitar
> Enviado el: jueves, 14 de abril de 2016 6:34
> This is getting stranger and stranger. There is not really any reason why
community
> network would not operate so that when new node connects it
auto-reconfigures
> some of its BGP peerings.
> 
> Anyway, I think the original text was better than this now. Old text was
at least
> redundant from my perspective, this now is adding invalid claims. :-)
Let's just leave
> it as it was. It describes Internet, which community networks anyway are
(a new
> generation of it). :-)

Let us leave this version then:

> Maybe mentioning that it can be both standard and non-standard? So
community
> networks are probably the most open to hacking and changing things to non-
> standard operations from all alternative networks. We should convey that.

I agree:

5.1.  Community Networks

   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Commercial       | community                                      |
   | model/promoter   |                                                |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Goals and        | all the goals listed in Section 4.2 may be     |
   | motivation       | present                                        |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Administration   | non-centralized                                |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Technologies     | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012] (standard and non-    |
   |                  | standard versions), optical fiber              |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Typical          | urban and rural                                |
   | scenarios        |                                                |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+

> >    Hardware and software used in Community Networks can be very diverse,

Ok!

   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.
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia