Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #4. Classification

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:22:00 +0200

Hi,
 
> Section 5, classification of alternative networks:
> 
> Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited
perspective. I would
> claim that most alternative networks go beyond just incentives, but exist
because of
> various beliefs: about how networks should operate, who should have
control over
> them, the importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc.

We tried to find some "orthogonal" axes (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00640.html) and we
arrived to these:

4.1.  Commercial model / promoter
4.2.  Goals and motivation
4.3.  Administrative model
4.4.  Technologies employed
4.5.  Typical scenarios

They may not be "orthogonal", and not every combination of the criteria does
make sense, but I think they are useful for classifying the networks.

> 
> Section 5.1, community networks:
> 
> As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list and
I think you
> should include at least ones I listed above. But probably you should do a
survey and
> ask community networks what are their goals and motivations, instead of
trying to
> guess them. (If you have done such a survey, I would love to see data.)

The list of motivations has been expanded as you suggested.

> 
> Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default.

Can you provide a reference? Thanks!

Jose

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:24:38 -0700

Hi!

> make sense, but I think they are useful for classifying the networks.

I would then suggest to add "ownership of equipment" or just
"ownership" to one of these dimensions.

If we extend also goals and motivation with additional options, then I
think this is closer to be able to cover community networks.

> The list of motivations has been expanded as you suggested.

Then we should probably add them as used by community networks.

> Can you provide a reference? Thanks!

Ubiquiti calls this technology airMax:

https://www.ubnt.com/broadband/
https://dl.ubnt.com/AirMax_ppt.pdf

It is their proprietary WiFi extension. There is also an open source
project aiming to provide this as well:

https://wiki.freebsd.org/WifiTDMA

Mitar

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

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:55:23 +0200

Hi again,

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Mitar [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 12:25
> Para: Jose Saldana <[email-masked]>
> CC: gaia <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review,
> question #4. Classification
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00640.html) and
> > we arrived to these:
> >
> > They may not be "orthogonal", and not every combination of the
> > criteria does make sense, but I think they are useful for classifying the networks.
> 
> I would then suggest to add "ownership of equipment" or just "ownership" to one of
> these dimensions.

I think "ownership of equipment" can be seen as a part of the "commercial model / promoter". In fact, the text in "Commerical model / promoter" already talks about ownership: " A community that already *owns* some infrastructure shares it with an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes."

What about this?

   The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting an Alternative
   Network can be:

   o  A community of users.

   o  A public stakeholder.

   o  A private company.

   o  Supporters of a crowdshared approach.

   o  A community that already owns some infrastructure shares it with
      an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes.

   o  A research or academic entity.

   The commercial model may have different implications regarding the
   ownership of the network equipment.  In some cases, each of the users
   of the community maintains the ownership over the equipment they have
   contributed, whereas in others there is an entity who owns the
   equipment, or at least a part of it.

> 
> If we extend also goals and motivation with additional options, then I think this is
> closer to be able to cover community networks.
> 

I don't understand the previous sentence. What does "them" refer to? Sorry.

> It is their proprietary WiFi extension. There is also an open source project aiming to
> provide this as well:
> 

Thanks. I would not include the freebsd link, as it is not working yet.

This would be the new version including this:

   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), either with CSMA/CA or
      with an alternative TDMA MAC [Simo_b].

   o  Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) can be combined with 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 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.

   o  Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in
      some villages.

> Mitar

Thanks,

Jose

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:25:31 -0700

"Hi!

> I think "ownership of equipment" can be seen as a part of the "commercial model / promoter". In fact, the text in "Commerical model / promoter" already talks about ownership: " A community that alr…

Not sure if you are trying to combine these just so that there would
be not too much changes to the structure of the current draft, but you
should decide which direction you want to go. I think what Vesna also
mentioned in her feedback is the lack of clear ownership
categorization.

How I see it:

- or we see ownership something which is part of the commercial model
category, but then we need to add additional options to this category
to make it clear what are those possible ownership combinations
- or we see ownership something which is orthogonal dimension to the
commercial model and then we list possible options there

Personally, I think ownership is an orthogonal dimension to the
commercial model. But in any case I really think this should be listed
in the table at the beginning of each alternative network description.
The reason is that this is one of the core properties of community
networks (and some other alternative networks). This is in fact one of
main innovations in this space. We can hardly discuss alternative
networks if we do not tackle alternative models of ownership. This is
why I believe ownership should even be its own category. Because then
to the readers it will be much cleaner why are those networks
different:

- they have different business models
- they have different ownership models
- they have different organizational structures
- they exist in areas where traditional ISPs do not (rural areas)
- they use technologies in innovative ways

I think those are really important dimensions along which to describe networks.

I can understand that it is maybe hard to add one more category, but I
think it is really important.

> 4.1.  Commercial model / promoter

BTW, I think word "facilitator" is much better than word "promoter".
Networks are not only about PR. I suggest we replace "promoter" with
"facilitator.

>    equipment, or at least a part of it.

As I wrote above, I think it should be one of categories so that we
categorize each alternative network based on that.

> I don't understand the previous sentence. What does "them" refer to? Sorry.

We expanded the category of motivations with new options. Now in the
table at the beginning of the "community networks" section we should
add those new options to the list of motivations people behind
community networks have. There is little use of expanding the list of
possible options if we then do not use them in tables for each type of
alternative networks. Probably also some other alternative networks
fall into one of those extra options.

> Thanks. I would not include the freebsd link, as it is not working yet.

To my understanding it is working. Where have you seen that it is not?
There are no known issues and there is some future work planned.

>       with an alternative TDMA MAC [Simo_b].

Also use of non-standard ad-hoc is used in some community networks.
Non-standard because N protocol does not support it. Or non-standard
because beacons are for example disabled.

Mitar

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:23:04 +0200

> 
> >> If we extend also goals and motivation with additional options, then
> >> I think this is closer to be able to cover community networks.
> >>
> We expanded the category of motivations with new options. Now in the table at the
> beginning of the "community networks" section we should add those new options to
> the list of motivations people behind community networks have. There is little use of
> expanding the list of possible options if we then do not use them in tables for each
> type of alternative networks. Probably also some other alternative networks fall into
> one of those extra options.

Understood, thanks.

Let's see what people say about this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01245.html

> Non-standard because N protocol does not support it. Or non-standard because
> beacons are for example disabled.

I think this is being discussed here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01240.html

Thanks,

Jose