IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios

"Eric A. BREWER" <brewer@berkeley.edu> Tue, 12 April 2016 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <brewer@berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72FE412D180 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=berkeley-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5T1pxFmxMzDD for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55A9612D0AE for <gaia@irtf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id j11so32092390lfb.1 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=berkeley-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=wxPU0Vj8IfztgtqEHIl8SxYtp+WTtU9Gqjc4z+iwE5U=; b=sXdkD/L0XWoHrGPckOd/+W3k3kHBlqRoEFl6ZpZLEoiIBKxocp4TzQrOJGmlrm4GJy 5KMQODxgeJa5Nh27169UY3S6HZK4V1N+fpCx6nLYy2dpC9T1DgQOUELeiG1WqoyLc5mZ F5Xt9/uvS4fKJSggPf2/oq8eEcyjpb6jyuX6TB5HKmFqZPIv36Q9SFDinhZnMG8B5V9/ 6WStnwh1twMQWBudONGXaMCa7Sau2vf1sqdcoYbNpni9fuVUWnQn/PGGvWR8Kxce3OVf Cz2qZWwB4v8mpCcY2nWOyhOAo5J1svkOhE9NpZ1/ww2AZoZMG7LfL3Qr5ce2uDfNOhFj tR7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=wxPU0Vj8IfztgtqEHIl8SxYtp+WTtU9Gqjc4z+iwE5U=; b=e46z2aovyXBlm5cHpIiRlhloFMJLRDC2VN0iK3LX+vv3DCYm9jwjxQKNmXNKo32z9H syckLzNGugueLxJYvXXtQbcT5+GkSUPMOqbgf4dD1v1AgfyMrfTSqZ2E7Yve9N9+AIg4 ka7r+ebVknXWWq0zOWnsF1t28v4e4dC+VpaRtLpZji85xy38typ7cm6KPNvBr35Q45qp FLYXF2jI5R6SPNFBFiNmTsnfD2ci4ksjgVbGZj1D8W+LBFh9j3gPAHHyeLJDgv7zmAMy rpg66GziI6ziLMu4DBMWTxVMYHaYfnprFeGLaQWQtEBEBN1uzow+Tcyo77S8RhnP6+V2 wyzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FU7SUt0Qc6F/NUw6JX0rVOSttyIlZY70FNRFJZGFbGEAR/RcAkOXbQeRnOQgSMU73eHgiircX4THFhqi2t2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.82.65 with SMTP id g62mr1812150lfb.142.1460477341158; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.42.197 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es>
References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CACDvGudjKEsyt-4CJNmREOfJN+c3yKWYWQL3_cBuW+Nkv6BwAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Eric A. BREWER" <brewer@berkeley.edu>
To: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141a1e21f66e605304be1cd"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/1K1tfHi7NldouDk0YruGmIUczuE>
Cc: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:09:05 -0000

I agree that there are rural only networks.  The use some backhaul that
might go to an urban area (if not satellite), but are really separate
things.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> > Section 4.5, typical scenarios:
> >
> > I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any
> network
> I know of
> > outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Community
> networks
> > maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow and
> spread
> > over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries.
>
> In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for rural
> areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the future a lot
> of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural deployments exist,
> so for me the classification makes sense.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jose
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email