Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Thu, 17 December 2015 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F561A01D8 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:33:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 YDXkXJ_wCQUH for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:33:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A60AE1A01C6 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:33:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id tBH8S3Hk012160; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:28:04 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Nicol=E1s_Ech=E1niz'?=" <nicoechaniz@altermundi.net>, <gaia@irtf.org>
References: <7F910716-1B51-41A6-9DC8-170F30C37803@isoc.org> <CAPaG1Ak3JsTn4O2DyO1JzN9RdbKR0XVMZB2Hy5+t_dFH4gEdog@mail.gmail.com> <12e3774a57a71bb8f974b66590925e9f@unizar.es> <566E906E.1080807@urjc.es> <C9648AE8-F81D-4A32-A859-474C27448D94@gmail.com> <00a801d13724$c2d20870$48761950$@unizar.es> <5671AB9D.50307@altermundi.net>
In-Reply-To: <5671AB9D.50307@altermundi.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:28:10 +0100
Message-ID: <006e01d138a4$dde1a680$99a4f380$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQGHPmcGkHmCgKHDGMH+I/aVxR4NSAJ66U8nAfwJiGMBDnE99AHL48E9AaQDM3kCI8rgFp8KAs0A
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/4SWIYG4ctYce_qMALSpj8FH0trA>
Subject: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:33:57 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for your contribution. Perhaps my statement:
> "we are mainly talking about initiatives driven by the people and local
companies.
> The idea is that people will maintain the control of the network they have
created."

Is not totally correct.

The idea is that in the draft we were trying to classify "uncommon"
networks, so we did a "negative" definition, as e.g. NGO. So an
"alternative" network is a non-traditional network. I copy from the draft:

1.1.  Traditional networks

   In this document we will use the term "traditional networks" to denote
those sharing these characteristics:

   - Regarding scale, they are usually large networks spanning entire
regions.

   - Top-down control of the network and centralized approaches are used.

   - They require a substantial investment in infrastructure.

   - Users in traditional networks tend to be passive consumers, as opposed
to active stakeholders, in the network design, deployment, operation and
maintenance.

1.2.  Alternative networks

   The definition of an "alternative network" in this document is negative:
a network not following the characteristics of "traditional networks".


Thanks,

Jose


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Nicolás Echániz
> Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de diciembre de 2015 19:21
> Para: gaia@irtf.org
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call:
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
> 
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I am Nicolás Echániz from AlterMundi in Argentina.
> 
> I'm coming late to this discussion but I'd like to point out that from the
point of view
> of our community networks, I would not use the words "alternative" or
> "complementary". For some reason, Community Networks, which is the name
that
> is established throughout the CN movement is usually avoided elsewhere. I
believe
> this generates confusion.
> 
> Community Networks nowadays include networks with their own ASN, where
> deployment is hybrid wireless + fiber; in fact everything about community
networks
> can be compared to other network models, except for the socio-economical
aspect,
> which is what defines them as "community"
> and not just networks.
> 
> Avoiding this is what creates such confusion as believing that Facebook
deploying
> drones around the world (which is clearly an Alternative), can be related
to the work
> done in Community Networks.
> 
> Regarding the original list of "kinds of networks" being considered:
> 
> 1 Community Networks
> 2 Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs
> 3 Shared infrastructure model
> 4 Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party stakeholders
> 5 Testbeds for research purposes
> 
> These do not all fall into what José explained in a previous e-mail:
> 
> "we are mainly talking about initiatives driven by the people and local
companies.
> The idea is that people will maintain the control of the network they have
created."
> 
> WISPs for example, can be big commercial entities with no community
control.
> 
> Furthermore, calling Community Networks "alternative" or "complementary",
puts
> them in a second level status in relation to "mainstream" networks which
we are in
> fact trying to avoid. These are Networks, just like all others, but with
communities
> behind them.
> 
> 
> To sum this up, I'd say that Community Networks be called just that and if
> necessary they can be put in their own group, while the rest can be called
> "alternative" if those involved agree.
> 
> 
> Well this is just an opinion from our previous experiences trying to name
these
> initiatives.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> NicoEchániz
> AlterMundi.net
> 
> 
> On 12/15/2015 07:38 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I also prefer “alternative” for two reasons:
> >
> >
> >
> > - I think the word fits better with the networks we had in mind while
> > writing the draft:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00984.html. And
> > IMHO, “alternative” is not the same as “complementary”.
> >
> >
> >
> > - A more practical reason: today is the deadline established by Mat in
> > order to initiate IRSG review of the document. So if we rethink the
> > title (and probably the whole document), we may lose a lot of time. I
> > must confess this may sound too “practical”, but we already discussed
> > a lot about the name to be applied to these networks. See e.g. these
threads:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00227.html
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00187.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot!
> >
> >
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >
> >
> > *De:*Andrés Arcia-Moret [mailto:andres.arcia@gmail.com] *Enviado el:*
> > lunes, 14 de diciembre de 2015 14:51
> > *Para:* Javier Simó <javier.simo@urjc.es>
> > *CC:* jsaldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>es>; gaia@irtf.org
> > *Asunto:* Re: [gaia] RG Last Call:
> > draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I second Javier, voting "alternative". I think we’ve all agreed on the
> > name alternative networks because it (mainly) matches an independent
> > willingness of communities to get connected..
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrés
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 14 Dec 2015, at 09:48, Javier Simó <javier.simo@urjc.es
> >     <mailto:javier.simo@urjc.es>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     Hello
> >
> >     I don't like the word "complementary" for two reasons:
> >
> >     1) Something is complementary when there is no competition. But, why
> >     not? I don't see why a community network cannot be deployed even if
> >     it is somehow in competition with a "traditional" existing network
> >     deployed by an operator.
> >
> >     2) The word "alternative" was used focusing on a number of criteria,
> >     not only on the non-existance of a traditional network.
> >
> >     I vote "alternative".
> >
> >     Best regards
> >
> >     Javier
> >
> >     El 12/12/15 a las 17:03, jsaldana escribió:
> >
> >         Hi, Arjuna and all,
> >
> >         In my opinion, in order to clarify if "Alternative network" =
> >         "Complementary network", we should answer two questions:
> >
> >         A) Are all "Alternative networks" also "Complementary networks"?
> >
> >         In the draft we are considering five kinds of networks:
> >
> >         1 Community Networks
> >
> >         2 Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs
> >
> >         3 Shared infrastructure model
> >
> >         4 Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party
> > stakeholders
> >
> >         5 Testbeds for research purposes
> >
> >         In the case of 4, it is clear that they are a "complement,"
> >         since they share the infrastructure and may reduce the CAPEX of
> >         the operator.
> >
> >         In the case of 1, they may become a "complement". Is this
> >         currently happening?
> >
> >         I don't think that WISPs (2) usually share their infrastructure
> >         with traditional operators. Am I right?
> >
> >
> >
> >         B) Are all "Complementary networks" also "Alternative networks"?
> >
> >         I think for example in the Wi-Fi network of an airport. This
> >         network can be considered as "complementary", because it may be
> >         used to offload data from the mobile network. But it is not
> >         "alternative" (it is not included in the draft), because it may
> >         be promoted by a traditional operator (not by the people), etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >         Any other ideas?
> >
> >         Thanks,
> >
> >         Jose
> >
> >
> >
> >         El 2015-12-12 13:45, Arjuna Sathiaseelan escribió:
> >
> >             Thanks Mat.
> >
> >
> >
> >             I have been recently discussing with Roger from Guifi about
> >             whether community networks should be termed as Alternative
> >             Networks or should it be called Complimentary Networks
> >             considering that community networks could end up sharing
> >             infrastructure with network operators who could see this as
> >             a great opportunity to access the last mile without a CAPEX.
> >
> >
> >
> >             So is Alternative Networks the right terminology or should
> >             we have Complimentary Networks?
> >
> >
> >
> >             Regards
> >
> >
> >
> >             On 1 December 2015 at 16:28, Mat Ford <ford@isoc.org
> >             <mailto:ford@isoc.org>> wrote:
> >
> >                 Folks,
> >
> >                 I think it’s time we tried to conclude our work on
> >                 draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Jose
> >                 detailed the changes in the most recent update when he
> >                 announced the update to the list, so I won’t repeat
> >                 those here. I have not seen any further discussion.
> >
> >                 If you have any concerns or further comments regarding
> >                 the content of this document, please raise them on this
> >                 mailing list by Tuesday December 15th. I hope to
> >                 initiate IRSG review of the document immediately
thereafter.
> >
> >                 Thanks,
> >                 Mat
> >                 _______________________________________________
> >                 gaia mailing list
> >                 gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
> >                 https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >             --
> >
> >             Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> >             Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
> >             <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/>
> >             N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d
> >             <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/n4d>
> >
> >
> >
> >             _______________________________________________
> >
> >             gaia mailing list
> >
> >             gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
> >
> >             https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >
> >         gaia mailing list
> >
> >         gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
> >
> >         https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >
> >
> >
> >     ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> >     Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <javier.simo@urjc.es>
> > <mailto:javier.simo@urjc.es>
> >
> >     Subdirector de Ord. Docente
> >
> >     ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación
> >
> >     D-204, Departamental III
> >
> >     Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
> >
> >     Tel: 914888428, Fax: 914887500
> >
> >     Web personal: http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     gaia mailing list
> >     gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
> >     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> > A/A/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gaia mailing list
> > gaia@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia