Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Nicolas review, question #5: Intranet/Internet

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:55:52 +0200

Hi, Nicolás,

> # Section Section 7.3
> 
> Fails to describe the accomplishments of current "state of the art"
community
> networks in terms of their relation with the rest of the Internet.
> The Intranet and Internet division proposed is contrary to what many
people in the
> Community Networks movement work for.
> 
> >From our perspective (which I know is shared by others[3]), a Community
> Network must aspire to become a part of the Internet. Many existing
community
> networks are Autonomous Systems and as such they should not be considered
> "Intranets".
> 
> >From this perspective, people participating in community networks should
be able
> to offer locally hosted services not just to other network members but to
the global
> Internet. We work to free the Internet, one chunk at a time, not to build
parallel
> networks.
> In order to accomplish this, networks should at least:
> * obtain their own IP ranges
> * deploy public IPv6 addressees to the end user devices
> * interconnect the network with other Autonomous Systems in the region
(preferably
> through Internet Exchanges)
> * try to provide symmetric bandwidth to everyone
> 
> All of these steps have been taken by different projects to different
extents. In the
> networks that deploy Libre-Mesh in Latin America, devices connected to the
> networks get public IPv6 and there's a DNS system in place that makes
every host
> globally accessible through it's fully qualified name. In the region of
Córdoba where
> the network is bigger (more than 100 nodes in 6 rural towns), we have a
peering
> agreement with the local state university[4] (which also hosts the IXP),
and the
> bandwidth to end users is symmetric and not artificially reduced.
> IPv6 is provided through a community operated Tunnel Broker[5] where no
native
> IPv6 routing can be achieved and through native deployment and peer
agreements
> where possible.
> 
> There are many interesting cases that are not represented by this section
of the
> document. I believe further research or direct participation from the
people involved
> is needed to get this to a state where it better describes the current
standards in
> Community Networks. The section actually looks like a description of the
state of
> community networks 10 years ago...
> 

I agree with you, it can be improved.

Please feel free to suggest your improvements to the text below. I mean, if
you could provide an alternative text with the ideas above, it would be
great.

This is the current version of subsection 7.3:

7.3.  Services provided

   This section provides an overview of the services between hosts
   inside the network.  They can be divided into Intranet services,
   connecting hosts between them, and Internet services, connecting to
   nodes outside the network.

7.3.1.  Intranet services

   Intranet services can include, but are not limited to:

   o  Web browsing.

   o  e-mail.

   o  Remote desktop (e.g. using my home computer and my Internet
      connection when I am away).

   o  FTP file sharing (e.g. distribution of software and media).

   o  VoIP (e.g. with SIP).

   o  P2P file sharing.

   o  Public video cameras.

   o  DNS.

   o  Online games servers.

   o  Jabber instant messaging.

   o  Weather stations.

   o  Network monitoring.

   o  Videoconferencing / streaming.

   o  Radio streaming.

   o  Message / Bulletin board.

7.3.2.  Access to the Internet

7.3.2.1.  Web browsing proxies

   Due to bandwidth limitations, some services (file sharing, VoIP,
   etc.) may not be allowed.  In some of these cases, a number of
   federated proxies provide web browsing service for the users.

7.3.2.2.  Use of VPNs

   Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing
   Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with
   Internet access.

7.3.2.3.  Other facilities

   Other facilities, as NTP or IRC servers may also be present in
   Alternative Networks.

> 
> 
> Let me know if I can be of further assistance contacting other people or
providing a
> better description of the cases we know of.
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> Nico

Thanks in advance,

Jose

> [-1]
http://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers/
> [0]
http://pillku.com/article/ipv6-en-redes-libres-la-experiencia-de-ninux/
> 
> [1] https://revolution-news.com/spanish-congress-approves-draconian-laws-
> essentially-sending-spain-back-to-the-dark-ages/
> 
> [2] https://blog.altermundi.net/article/ips-publicas-para-todo-el-mundo/
> 
> [3]
http://pillku.com/article/las-redes-libres-y-la-ipv6-como-medio-para-llegar-
/
> http://pillku.com/article/redes-libres-redes-de-pares/
> 
> [4] http://lg.beta.as6453.net/prefix_bgpmap/mtt/ipv4?q=138.255.88.1
> https://blog.altermundi.net/article/altermundi-ya-es-un-sistema-autonomo/
> 
> [5] http://docs.altermundi.net/LibreNet6/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia