Subject: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Stephen Farrel's comment #3: Section 7.3

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:20:06 +0200

Hi all,

This is another comment from Stephen. However, I think we have significantly improved this section. See this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01198.html

> > - 7.3 omits email, which is odd and you only mention the web in the
> > context of proxies which is maybe even more odd; and NTP is not really
> > an "intranet" service, nor is IRC. Maybe this section could do with
> > some more work?

This is the current version:

------

7.3.  Services provided

   This section provides an overview of the services provided by the
   network.  Many Alternative Networks can be considered Autonomous
   Systems, being (or aspiring to be) a part of the Internet.

   The services provided can include, but are not limited to:

   o  Web browsing.

   o  e-mail.

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

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

   o  VoIP (e.g. with SIP).

   o  P2P file sharing.

   o  Public video cameras.

   o  DNS.

   o  Online games servers.

   o  Jabber instant messaging.

   o  Weather stations.

   o  Network monitoring.

   o  Videoconferencing / streaming.

   o  Radio streaming.

   o  Message / Bulletin board.

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

   Some specialized services have been especifically developed for
   Alternative Networks:

   o  Inter-network peering/VPNs (e.g. https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-
      VPN).

   o  Local wikis (e.g. https://localwiki.org).

   o  Community oriented portals (e.g. http://tidepools.co/).

   o  Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platform.s

   o  VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between
      countries.

   o  Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to
      devices.

   o  Community radio/TV stations.

7.3.1.  Use of VPNs

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

7.3.2.  Other facilities

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

------

Best regards,

Jose

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