doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 2411 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7962.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7962.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2d537ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7962.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2411 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                      J. Saldana, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 7962                        University of Zaragoza
+Category: Informational                                   A. Arcia-Moret
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                  University of Cambridge
+                                                                B. Braem
+                                                                  iMinds
+                                                         E. Pietrosemoli
+                                                    The Abdus Salam ICTP
+                                                         A. Sathiaseelan
+                                                 University of Cambridge
+                                                              M. Zennaro
+                                                    The Abdus Salam ICTP
+                                                             August 2016
+
+
+                    Alternative Network Deployments:
+      Taxonomy, Characterization, Technologies, and Architectures
+
+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 providing a 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+   published for informational purposes.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
+   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
+   and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
+   deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus of the Global Access
+   to the Internet for All Research Group of the Internet Research Task
+   Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not
+   a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
+   7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7962.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+     1.1.  Mainstream Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+     1.2.  Alternative Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
+     4.1.  Entity behind the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
+     4.2.  Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
+     4.3.  Governance and Sustainability Model . . . . . . . . . . .  12
+     4.4.  Technologies Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
+     4.5.  Typical Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
+   5.  Classification of Alternative Networks  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
+     5.1.  Community Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
+     5.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) . . . . . . .  16
+     5.3.  Shared Infrastructure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
+     5.4.  Crowdshared Approaches Led by the Users and Third-Party
+           Stakeholders  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
+     5.5.  Rural Utility Cooperatives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
+     5.6.  Testbeds for Research Purposes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
+   6.  Technologies Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
+     6.1.  Wired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
+     6.2.  Wireless  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
+       6.2.1.  Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless
+               Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
+         6.2.1.1.  802.11 (Wi-Fi)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
+         6.2.1.2.  Mobile Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
+         6.2.1.3.  Dynamic Spectrum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
+   7.  Upper Layers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
+     7.1.  Layer 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
+       7.1.1.  IP Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
+       7.1.2.  Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
+         7.1.2.1.  Traditional Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . .  26
+         7.1.2.2.  Mesh Routing Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
+     7.2.  Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
+       7.2.1.  Traffic Management When Sharing Network Resources . .  27
+     7.3.  Services Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
+       7.3.1.  Use of VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
+       7.3.2.  Other Facilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
+     7.4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
+   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
+   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
+   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
+   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+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.
+
+   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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+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
+   following characteristics:
+
+   o  Relatively small scale (i.e., not spanning entire regions).
+
+   o  Administration may not follow a centralized approach.
+
+   o  They may require a reduced investment in infrastructure, which may
+      be shared by the users and 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 are responsible for long debates whose resolution is
+   out of the scope of this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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), the
+      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 the
+      number of inhabitants, the population density, and the distance
+      between houses [UNStats].  For networking purposes, the primary
+      distinction is likely the average distance between customers,
+      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 backhaul 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.
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   o  Free, open, and neutral networks.  Their principles have been
+      summarized this way [Baig]:
+
+      *  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.
+
+      *  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% of the population in "global south" countries
+   had access in 2014, against 80% in "global north" countries
+   [WorldBank2016].  This is one of the reasons behind the inclusion of
+   the objective to "significantly increase access to information and
+   communications technology and strive to provide universal and
+   affordable access to the Internet in least 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, which can be quantified in terms of:
+
+   o  The availability of both national and international bandwidth, as
+      well as equipment.
+
+   o  The difficulty in paying for the services and the devices required
+      to access the ICTs.
+
+   o  The instability and/or lack of power supply.
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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.
+
+   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 localized 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], with 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.
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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 infrastructures, such as electricity,
+      water, and access roads.
+
+   o  Low population density and distance (spatial or effective) 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
+      incentivized by better opportunities, higher salaries, or the
+      possibility of starting 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   Regularly, rural areas in these networks are connected through long-
+   distance links and/or wireless mesh networks, which in turn convey
+   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:
+
+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
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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).
+
+   o  Reducing ongoing operational costs (such as backhaul or network
+      administration).
+
+   o  Leveraging expertise and having a place for experimentation and
+      teaching.
+
+   o  Reducing hurdles to adoption (e.g., digital literacy, literacy in
+      general, and relevance).
+
+   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 Red
+   Hook 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].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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 or a
+   public stakeholder) plans and manages the network, even if it is
+   (total or partially) owned by a community.
+
+   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] using the Distributed
+      Coordination Function.
+
+   o  Wi-Fi-based Long Distance (WiLD) networks.  These can work with
+      either Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance
+      (CSMA/CA) or an alternative Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)
+      Media Access Control (MAC) [Simo_b].
+
+   o  TDMA.  It can be combined with a Wi-Fi protocol, in a non-standard
+      way [airMAX].  This configuration allows each client to send and
+      receive data using pre-designated timeslots.
+
+   o  802.16-compliant (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
+      (WiMax)) [IEEE.802.16] 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] or 802.22 [IEEE.802.22].
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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
+   importantly interesting usage challenges that 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+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] (standard and non-standard   |
+   | employed       | versions) and optical fiber                      |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+   | Typical        | urban and rural                                  |
+   | scenarios      |                                                  |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+
+          Table 1: Characteristics Summary for Community Networks
+
+   Community Networks are non-centralized, self-managed networks sharing
+   these characteristics:
+
+   o  They start and grow organically, and 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 website) 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).
+
+   o  The network can serve as a backhaul for providing a whole range of
+      services and applications, from completely free to even commercial
+      services.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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], which focuses on technological
+   network diversity, topology characteristics, the 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 the 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.               Informational                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 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; and 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] and [IEEE.802.16]  |
+   | employed       | and unlicensed frequencies                       |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+   | Typical        | rural (urban deployments also exist)             |
+   | scenarios      |                                                  |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+
+                Table 2: Characteristics Summary for WISPs
+
+   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 telecommunications
+   companies 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.               Informational                    [Page 16]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 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); and extend         |
+   |                | coverage to underserved areas                    |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+   | Governance and | the community rents the existing infrastructure  |
+   | sustainability | to an operator                                   |
+   | model          |                                                  |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+   | Technologies   | wireless in non-licensed bands, mobile           |
+   | employed       | femtocells, WiLD networks [WiLD], and/or low-    |
+   |                | cost fiber                                       |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+   | Typical        | rural areas, and more particularly rural areas   |
+   | scenarios      | in "global south" regions                        |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+
+        Table 3: Characteristics Summary for Shared Infrastructure
+
+   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 the 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 17]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   One clear example of the potential of the "shared infrastructure
+   model" nowadays is the deployment of 3G services in rural areas in
+   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 belonged to the public health authorities and were deployed
+   with funds that came from international cooperation for telemedicine
+   purposes.  Publications that justify the feasibility of this approach
+   can also be found on that website.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 18]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+5.4.  Crowdshared Approaches Led by the Users and Third-Party
+      Stakeholders
+
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+   | Entity behind  | community, public stakeholders, private          |
+   | the network    | companies, and 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]                              |
+   | employed       |                                                  |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+   | Typical        | urban and rural                                  |
+   | scenarios      |                                                  |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
+
+        Table 4: Characteristics Summary for Crowdshared Approaches
+
+   These networks can be defined as a set of nodes whose owners share
+   common interests (e.g., sharing connectivity; resources; and
+   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
+   Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) policies are
+   implemented, so people can join the network in different ways: they
+   can buy a router, so they can 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
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 19]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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 crowdshared 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; and devices.
+
+   o  The owner: End users who sign up for the service and share their
+      network capacity.  As a counterpart, they can access another
+      owner's home network capacity for free.  The owner can be an end
+      user or an entity (e.g., operator; virtual mobile network
+      operator; or 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.
+
+   o  The 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 or naming).  A VNO is not an
+      Application Service Provider (ASP) either since it does not
+      provide user services.  VNOs may also be stakeholders with socio-
+      environmental objectives.  They can be local governments,
+      grassroots user communities, charities, or even content operators,
+      smart grid operators, etc.  They are the ones who actually run the
+      service.
+
+   o  Network operators: They have a financial incentive to lease out
+      unused capacity [Sathiaseelan_b] at a 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, and the network operators are paid by the
+   VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 20]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+5.5.  Rural Utility Cooperatives
+
+   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
+   | Entity behind the   | rural utility cooperative                   |
+   | network             |                                             |
+   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
+   | Purpose             | to serve underserved areas and to reduce    |
+   |                     | capital expenditures in Internet access     |
+   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
+   | Governance and      | the cooperative partners with an ISP who    |
+   | sustainability      | manages the network                         |
+   | model               |                                             |
+   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
+   | Technologies        | wired (fiber) and wireless                  |
+   | employed            |                                             |
+   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
+   | Typical scenarios   | rural                                       |
+   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
+
+      Table 5: Characteristics Summary for Rural Utility Cooperatives
+
+   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 Service
+   Providers such as telephone companies or cable TV companies are
+   either not providing service at all or only offering 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].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 21]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+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: Characteristics Summary for Testbeds
+
+   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 (for example, see [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
+   Lowenstedt, Germany [Lowenstedt] or in 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 22]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+6.2.1.  Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless Links
+
+   Different protocols for MAC, 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 the 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 an 802.11
+   standard that consolidated all the previous amendments [IEEE.802.11].
+   The document is freely downloadable from the IEEE Standards
+   Association [IEEE].
+
+   The MAC protocol in 802.11 is called CSMA/CA and was designed for
+   short distances; the transmitter expects the reception of an
+   acknowledgment for each transmitted unicast packet and 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.  Low-cost equipment using these techniques can
+   offer high throughput at distances above 100 kilometers.
+
+   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
+   5 GHz.  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, and
+      public spaces operate at 2.4 GHz.
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 23]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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 they 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
+
+   Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), from ETSI, has also
+   been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained
+   in [Mexican], [Village], and [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 such as, e.g., [Rangenetworks],
+   [Endaga], and [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
+   Third 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
+   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 that are able to
+   modify their frequency, power, and modulation techniques to meet the
+   strict operating conditions required for secondary users.
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 24]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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] -- an adaptation of the 802.11 standard for
+   TV White Space bands -- and (ii) the IEEE 802.22 standard
+   [IEEE.802.22] for long-range rural communication.
+
+6.2.1.3.1.  802.11af
+
+   802.11af [IEEE.802.11AF] 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
+   (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) but with improved in-building
+   penetration and outdoor coverage.  The maximum data rate achievable
+   is 426.7 Mbit/s for countries with 6/7 MHz channels and 568.9 Mbit/s
+   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] is a standard developed specifically for long-
+   range rural communications in TV White Space frequencies and was
+   first approved in July 2011.  The standard is similar to the 802.16
+   (WiMax) [IEEE.802.16] standard with an added cognitive radio ability.
+   The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbit/s 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 (CPE) are sent before slots
+   destined for nearby CPEs.
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 25]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   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 TV White Space
+   channel with the CPE devices.  The standard also includes a
+   coexistence 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, such as 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.  A
+   connection between different nodes is not guaranteed, and the link
+   stability can vary strongly over time.  To tackle this, some
+   Alternative Networks use mesh routing protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc
+   Networks (MANETs), while other ones 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.
+
+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].
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 26]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+7.1.2.2.  Mesh Routing Protocols
+
+   A large number of Alternative Networks use customized versions of the
+   Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Protocol [RFC3626].  The open
+   source project [OLSR] has extended the protocol with the Expected
+   Transmission Count (ETX) metric [Couto] and other features for its
+   use in Alternative Networks, especially wireless ones.  A new version
+   of the protocol, named OLSRv2 [RFC7181], is becoming used in some
+   Community Networks [Barz].
+
+   Better Approach To Mobile Ad Hoc Networking (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 BatMan-eXperimental Version 6 (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
+   implements a Less-than-Best-Effort (LBE) [RFC6297] policy for the
+   user is used to protect the sharer.  Achieving LBE behavior requires
+   the appropriate tuning of well-known mechanisms such as Explicit
+   Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168], Random Early Detection (RED)
+   [RFC7567], or other more recent AQM mechanisms that aid low latency
+   such as Controlled Delay (CoDel) [CoDel] and Proportional Integral
+   controller Enhanced (PIE) [PIE] design.
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 27]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+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  Email.
+
+   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  Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing.
+
+   o  Public video cameras.
+
+   o  DNS.
+
+   o  Online game servers.
+
+   o  Jabber instant messaging.
+
+   o  Weather stations.
+
+   o  Network monitoring.
+
+   o  Videoconferencing/streaming.
+
+   o  Radio streaming.
+
+   o  Message/bulletin board.
+
+   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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 28]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   Some specialized services have been specifically 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 used in community portals; see
+   https://localwiki.org) 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 Internet Relay Chat (IRC) servers
+   may also be present in Alternative Networks.
+
+7.4.  Security Considerations
+
+   No security issues have been identified for this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 29]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+8.  Informative References
+
+   [Airjaldi] AirJaldi Networks, "Airjaldi Service", 2015,
+              <https://airjaldi.com/>.
+
+   [airMAX]   Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., "airMAX", 2016,
+              <https://www.ubnt.com/broadband/>.
+
+   [Avonts]   Avonts, J., Braem, B., and C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire
+              based Examination of Community Networks", IEEE 9th
+              International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing,
+              Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp. 8-15,
+              DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2013.6673333, October 2013.
+
+   [Baig]     Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., and L. Navarro,
+              "guifi.net, a crowdsourced network infrastructure held in
+              common", Computer Networks, Vol. 90, Issue C, pp. 150-165,
+              DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009, October 2015.
+
+   [Barz]     Barz, C., Fuchs, C., Kirchhoff, J., Niewiejska, J., and H.
+              Rogge, "OLSRv2 for Community Networks", Computer Networks,
+              Vol. 93, Issue P2, pp. 324-341, December 2015,
+              <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.022>.
+
+   [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, pp. 9-16, DOI 10.1145/1410064.1410067,
+              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, Issue 3, pp. 68-73,
+              DOI 10.1145/2500098.2500108, July 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 Society, Vol. 38, Issue 6, pp. 25-38,
+              DOI 10.1109/MC.2005.204, 2005.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 30]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [Carlson]  Carlson, S. and C. Mitchell, "RS Fiber: Fertile Fields for
+              New Rural Internet Cooperative", Institute for Local Self-
+              Reliance and Next Century Cities, April 2016,
+              <https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/
+              rs-fiber-report-2016.pdf>.
+
+   [Cash]     Cash, C., "CO-MO'S D.I.Y. Model for Building Broadband",
+              National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA),
+              November 2015, <http://remagazine.coop/co-mo-broadband/>.
+
+   [Cerda-Alabern]
+              Cerda-Alabern, L., "On the topology characterization of
+              Guifi.net", Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International
+              Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking
+              and Communications (WiMob), pp. 389-396,
+              DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379103, October 2012.
+
+   [CoDel]    Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., and J. Iyengar,
+              "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management", Work in
+              Progress, draft-ietf-aqm-codel-04, June 2016.
+
+   [Couto]    De Couto, D., Aguayo, D., Bicket, J., and R. Morris, "A
+              high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless
+              routing", Wireless Networks, Vol. 11, Issue 4, pp.
+              419-434, DOI 10.1007/s11276-005-1766-z, July 2005.
+
+   [Endaga]   Alleven, M., "Endaga raises $1.2M to help it bring
+              cellular to remote villages", FierceWireless Tech News,
+              December 2014, <http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/
+              endaga-raises-12m-help-it-bring-cellular-remote-
+              villages/2014-12-03>.
+
+   [Everylayer]
+              Everylayer, Inc. (formerly Volo Broadband), "Everylayer",
+              2015, <http://www.everylayer.com/>.
+
+   [Fon]      Fon, "Fon is the Global WiFi Network", 2014,
+              <https://corp.fon.com/en>.
+
+   [GAIA]     Internet Research Task Force, "Charter: Global Access to
+              the Internet for All Research Group (GAIA)", 2016,
+              <https://irtf.org/gaia>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 31]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 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,
+              DOI 10.1109/PERCOMW.2010.5470505, 2010.
+
+   [Heimerl]  Heimerl, K., Shaddi, H., Ali, K., Brewer, E., and T.
+              Parikh, "Local, sustainable, small-scale cellular
+              networks", In ICTD 2013, Cape Town, South Africa,
+              DOI 10.1145/2516604.2516616, 2013.
+
+   [IEEE]     Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
+              "IEEE Standards Association",
+              <https://standards.ieee.org/>.
+
+   [IEEE.802.11]
+              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for 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 802.11-2012, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2012.6178212, April
+              2012, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
+              download/802.11-2012.pdf>.
+
+   [IEEE.802.11AF]
+              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for 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
+              802.11af-2013, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6744566, February
+              2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
+              download/802.11af-2013.pdf>.
+
+   [IEEE.802.16]
+              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for 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 802.16-2012,
+              DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2012.6272299, August 2012,
+              <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
+              download/802.16-2012.pdf>.
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 32]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [IEEE.802.22]
+              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology-- 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 802.22-2011, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2011.5951707, July
+              2011, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
+              opac?punumber=5951705>.
+
+   [IFAD2011] International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
+              "Rural Poverty Report 2011", ISBN 978-92-9072-200-7, 2011.
+
+   [InternetStats]
+              Internet World Stats, "World Internet Users and 2015
+              Population Stats",
+              <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm>.
+
+   [ITU2011]  International Telecommunication Union, "World
+              Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database - 2011",
+              <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/
+              publications/wtid.aspx>.
+
+   [Johnson_a]
+              Johnson, D. and K. Roux, "Building Rural Wireless
+              Networks: Lessons Learnt and Future Directions", In
+              Proceedings of the ACM workshop on Wireless networks and
+              systems for developing regions, pp. 17-22,
+              DOI 10.1145/1410064.1410068, 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,
+              DOI 10.1145/1963192.1963363, 2011.
+
+   [Lowenstedt]
+              Huggler, J., "German villagers set up their own broadband
+              network", June 2014,
+              <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/
+              germany/10871150/
+              German-villagers-set-up-their-own-broadband-network.html>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 33]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [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", 6th
+              International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications
+              and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), pp. 407-414,
+              DOI 10.1109/ICUMT.2014.7002136, October 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, pp. 1-12, DOI 10.1109/ICTD.2007.4937391,
+              2007.
+
+   [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, DOI 10.5325/jinfopoli.4.2014.0250, 2014.
+
+   [Meraki]   Cisco Systems, "Meraki", 2016, <https://www.meraki.com/>.
+
+   [Mexican]  Varma, S., "Ignored by big companies, Mexican village
+              creates its own mobile service", August 2013,
+              <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/
+              Ignored-by-big-companies-Mexican-village-creates-its-own-
+              mobile-service/articleshow/22094736.cms>.
+
+   [Mitchell] Mitchell, C., "Broadband At the Speed of Light: How Three
+              Communities Built Next-Generation Networks", Institute for
+              Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), April 2012, <http://ilsr.org/
+              wp-content/uploads/2012/04/muni-bb-speed-light.pdf>.
+
+   [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,
+              DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379145, 2012.
+
+   [Neumann_b]
+              Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "Evaluation of
+              mesh routing protocols for wireless community networks",
+              Computer Networks, Vol. 93, Part 2, pp. 308-323, December
+              2015, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.018>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 34]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [NewMexico]
+              New Mexico Department of Information Technology,
+              "Broadband Guide for Electric Utilities", CTC Technology &
+              Energy, Version 1, April 2015,
+              <http://www.doit.state.nm.us/broadband/reports/
+              NMBBP_FiberGuide_ElectricUtilities.pdf>.
+
+   [Norris]   Norris, P., "Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information
+              Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide", Cambridge University
+              Press, ISBN 0521807514, 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, October 2011.
+
+   [NYTimes]  Gall, C. and J. Glanz, "U.S. Promotes Network to Foil
+              Digital Spying", The New York Times, April 2014,
+              <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/
+              us-promotes-network-to-foil-digital-spying.html?_r=1>.
+
+   [OLSR]     OLSR.org, "OLSR", 2016, <http://www.olsr.org/>.
+
+   [Openair]  OpenAirInterface, "OpenAirInterface: 5G software alliance
+              for democratising wireless innovation", 2016,
+              <http://www.openairinterface.org/>.
+
+   [OpenMesh] Open Mesh, "Open Mesh", 2016, <http://www.open-mesh.com/>.
+
+   [Osmocom]  Open Source Mobile Communications (Osmocom), "Cellular
+              Infrastructure", GPRS bitrates, 2016,
+              <https://osmocom.org/projects/osmopcu/wiki/GPRS_bitrates>.
+
+   [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, University of Aberdeen, October
+              2012.
+
+   [PIE]      Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White, "PIE: A
+              Lightweight Control Scheme To Address the Bufferbloat
+              Problem", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-aqm-pie-09, August
+              2016.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 35]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [Pietrosemoli]
+              Pietrosemoli, E., Zennaro, M., and C. Fonda, "Low cost
+              carrier independent telecommunications infrastructure",
+              Global Information Infrastructure and Networking
+              Symposium, pp. 1-4, DOI 10.1109/GIIS.2012.6466655,
+              December 2012.
+
+   [Rangenetworks]
+              Range Networks, "Range Networks", 2016,
+              <http://www.rangenetworks.com>.
+
+   [Redhook]  Red Hook WIFI, "Red Hook WIFI, a project of the Red Hook
+              Initiative", 2016, <http://redhookwifi.org/>.
+
+   [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, Article No. 9, DOI 10.1145/2414393.2414402,
+              2011.
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [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>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 36]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [RFC7181]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
+              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
+              RFC 7181, DOI 10.17487/RFC7181, April 2014,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7181>.
+
+   [RFC7567]  Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
+              Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
+              BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.
+
+   [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, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2008,
+              <http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/
+              viewArticle/427>.
+
+   [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,
+              DOI 10.1109/EWSDN.2013.7, October 2013.
+
+   [Sathiaseelan_b]
+              Sathiaseelan, A. and J. Crowcroft, "LCD-Net: Lowest Cost
+              Denominator Networking", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
+              Communication Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 2013,
+              <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2479957.2479966>.
+
+   [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", Proceedings of the Fifth ACM
+              Symposium on Computing for Development, pp. 33-42,
+              DOI 10.1145/2674377.2674383, 2014.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 37]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [SDG]      United Nations, "Sustainable Development Goals",
+              Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2015,
+              <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300>.
+
+   [Seither]  Seither, D., Koenig, A., and M. Hollick, "Routing
+              performance of Wireless Mesh Networks: A practical
+              evaluation of BATMAN advanced", IEEE 36th Conference on
+              Local Computer Networks (LCN), pp. 897-904,
+              DOI 10.1109/LCN.2011.6115569, October 2011.
+
+   [Shi]      Shi, J., Gui, L., Koutsonikolas, D., Qiao, C., and G.
+              Challen, "A Little Sharing Goes a Long Way: The Case for
+              Reciprocal Wifi Sharing", HotWireless '15 Proceedings of
+              the 2nd International Workshop on Hot Topics in Wireless,
+              DOI 10.1145/2799650.2799652, September 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",
+              Proceedings of EUCNC, 2014.
+
+   [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, Vol. 9, Issue 6, pp. 881-896,
+              DOI 10.1109/TMC.2010.27, 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, Issue 3, pp. 24-30,
+              DOI 0.1109/MWC.2008.4547519, 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, Vol. 93, Issue P2, pp.
+              245-259, December 2015,
+              <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.006>.
+
+   [Spectrum] Laursen, L., "Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities
+              Build Their Own 4G Networks", November 2015,
+              <http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/
+              softwaredefined-radio-will-let-communities-build-their-
+              own-4g-networks>.
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 38]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [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, August 2014.
+
+   [Tech]     Kazansky, B., "In Red Hook, Mesh Network Connects Sandy
+              Survivors Still Without Power", November 2012,
+              <http://techpresident.com/news/23127/red-hook-mesh-
+              network-connects-sandy-survivors-still-without-power>.
+
+   [TidePools]
+              Baldwin, J., "TidePools: Social WiFi", Parsons, the New
+              School for Design, Doctoral dissertation, Master thesis,
+              2011, <http://www.scribd.com/doc/94601219/
+              TidePools-Social-WiFi-Thesis>.
+
+   [UN]       United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), "Composition of
+              macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical
+              sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings",
+              October 2013, <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/
+              m49regin.htm#ftnc>.
+
+   [UNStats]  United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), "Urban and
+              total population by sex: 1996-2005", Table 6 - Demographic
+              Yearbook 2005,
+              <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/
+              dyb2005/notestab06.pdf>.
+
+   [Vega_a]   Vega, D., Cerda-Alabern, L., Navarro, L., and R. Meseguer,
+              "Topology patterns of a community network: Guifi.net",
+              IEEE 8th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile
+              Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp.
+              612-619, DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379139, October 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, Vol.
+              93, Issue P2, pp. 260-278, December 2015,
+              <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.023>.
+
+   [Village]  Heimerl, K. and E. Brewer, "The Village Base Station",
+              Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Networked Systems
+              for Developing Regions, Article No. 14,
+              DOI 10.1145/1836001.1836015, 2010.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 39]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   [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, pp. 1, April
+              2007.
+
+   [WNDW]     WNDW, "Wireless Networking in the Developing World, 3rd
+              Edition", The WNDW Project, 2013, <http://wndw.net>.
+
+   [WorldBank2016]
+              World Bank, "World Development Report 2016: Digital
+              Dividends", Washington, DC: The World Bank, ISBN
+              978-1-4648-0672-8, DOI 10.1596/978-1-4648-0671-1, 2016,
+              <http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentS
+              erver/WDSP/IB/2016/01/13/090224b08405ea05/2_0/Rendered/
+              PDF/World0developm0000digital0dividends.pdf>.
+
+   [WSIS]     International Telecommunications Union, "Declaration of
+              Principles. Building the Information Society: A global
+              challenge in the new millennium", WSIS-03 / GENEVA / DOC /
+              4-E, December 2003, <http://www.itu.int/wsis>.
+
+   [YateBTS]  YateBTS, "YateBTS", 2016, <http://yatebts.com/>.
+
+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: Panayotis Antoniadis, Paul M. Aoki,
+   Roger Baig, Jaume Barcelo, Steven G. Huter, Aldebaro Klautau, Rohan
+   Mahy, Vesna Manojlovic, Mitar Milutinovic, Henning Schulzrinne, Rute
+   Sofia, and Dirk Trossen.
+
+   A special thanks to the GAIA Working Group chairs Mat Ford and Arjuna
+   Sathiaseelan for their support and guidance.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 40]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+Contributors
+
+   Leandro Navarro
+   U. Politecnica Catalunya
+   Jordi Girona, 1-3, D6
+   Barcelona  08034
+   Spain
+
+   Phone: +34 93 401 6807
+   Email: leandro@ac.upc.edu
+
+   Carlos Rey-Moreno
+   University of the Western Cape
+   Robert Sobukwe road
+   Bellville  7535
+   South Africa
+
+   Phone: +27 (0)21 959 2562
+   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
+
+   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
+
+
+
+
+
+Saldana, et al.               Informational                    [Page 41]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 2016
+
+
+   Javier Simo-Reigadas
+   Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieria de Telecomunicacion
+   Campus de Fuenlabrada
+   Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
+   Madrid
+   Spain
+
+   Phone: +34 91 488 8428
+   Fax:   +34 91 488 7500
+   Email: javier.simo@urjc.es
+
+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.               Informational                    [Page 42]
+
+RFC 7962             Alternative Network Deployments         August 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.               Informational                    [Page 43]
+