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

[Mitar <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

OK, for me it was just confusing categorization. Maybe because other
categorizations list one option per dot, here we list separate
dimensions for each dot (urban/rural, south/north). Type checking does
not match with other categories. :-) And then we use most of the time
"urban and rural" anyway. :-)

BTW, WISPs can be both urban and rural. In San Francisco we have a popular WISP:

https://monkeybrains.net/wireless.html

Pretty urban use. There is nothing really in WISPs to make them rural only.


Mitar

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> 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
>
>



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