summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7962.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7962.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc7962.txt2411
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]
+