Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. The axes for the classification

[Jane Coffin <[e-mail]>]

Many of the IXPs we work with are not “commercial” but not-for-profit.
Given they are not networks, but facilitating traffic exchange – where do you see them in this schema?

From: Javier Simó <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, February 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM
To: Jose Saldana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, 'Maria Uden' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Mat Ford <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. The axes for the classification

Hello Jose

I like the 5 axes scheme that you propose. I would just add that a particular alternative network may not be a point in the 5-dimensional space, but a "volume". A network may use more than one technology, cover more than one typical scenario, have more than one motivation, etc. Only axe 5) is pretty binary, the network management paradigm is either centralized or distributed, never both.

Last, I'm thinking at Delay Tolerant Networks. I think that the DTN paradigm is significant and it cannot be clearly positioned in any axe. It could be in technology, but it is a bit ortogonal to layer-2 technologies. Also I don't know if you guys think that it is worth of a 6th axe (sorry).

Best

El 16/02/15 a las 17:03, Jose Saldana escribió:
Hi all,

You are right: the current version of the draft says something a bit confusing:

   Different criteria are used in order
   to build a classification as e.g., the ownership of the equipment,
   the way the network is organized, the participatory model, the
   extensibility, if they are driven by a community, a company or a
   local (public or private) stakeholder,

Taking into account your proposals, I have tried to build a scheme with five “axes” of the classification. They could perhaps be:

1) Commercial model / promoter
* community
* public stakeholder
* company
* crowdshared
* shared infrastructure
* research testbed

2) Goals and motivation (Henning’s classification)
* reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end user, or both)
* providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional carrier-based financing)
* reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network administration)
* leveraging expertise
* reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy, in general; relevance, etc.)

3) Typical scenarios
* urban
* rural
* rural in developing countries

4) Technologies employed (Javier’s list)
* normal WiFi
* WiLD
* modified WiFi with TDMA MAC
* 802.16-compliant systems over non-licensed bands
* white spaces - 802.22 compliant solutions
* satellite solutions
* low-cost optical fiber systems

5) Network management
* Centralized
* Distributed


Do all of them make sense to you?

Are they “orthogonal” enough?


Thanks and best regards,

Jose

De:gaia [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de Javier Simó
Enviado el: martes, 10 de febrero de 2015 16:30
Para: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [gaia] New VersionNotification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification


El 10/02/15 a las #4, Maria Uden escribió:
Yes, and the technical details can be presented by themselves, in even more detail, without referring to the socio-technical context?
In my humble point of view,
    - yes, technical details can be presented by themselves without referring to the context, provided that later in the document technology is going to be crossed in the matrix with the different alternative networks together with other vertical descriptors.

    - however, i think that we should not go very deep into the details in describing technologies. They are described either in standards or in papers that can be referenced. Techniques that are well known and that are explained in books or articles should also be cited. We should be able to summarize those things, with appropriate references, instead of extending the document with them unnecessarily. The accent of the document should not be in the technologies, but in the definition of the alternative networks with the discussion of all the relevant characteristics (socio-technical context, technologies used, bussiness model, ...)

Best
Javier


A test bed can have different underlying reasons, for instance be thought of as a way to raise funding for a community network.
Maria

From: Henning G Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: den 10 februari 2015 15:30
To: Maria Uden
Cc: Jose Saldana; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Matthew Ford
Subject: Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification

Another approach is to look at the underlying motivation for these approaches, i.e., addressing deployment and usage hurdles:

* reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end user, or both)
* providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional carrier-based financing)
* reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network administration)
* leveraging expertise
* reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy, in general; relevance, etc.)

Most of the examples given, except the testbed, seem to fall into one or more of these categories. Given that there are likely more solutions than the examples discussed, it might be helpful to focus on the goals, as that then also allows to evaluate whether and to what extent a solution meets the goal. Otherwise, it's just technology for coolness' sake.

Henning

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Maria Uden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
The classification is interesting as information but, is it not only examples, after all? Or, what is the purpose? An analogy: My experience as teacher is that the more detailed descriptions the more the students will ask – because each detail opens questions. Like the fractals one sees in these nice maths/science pictures. They will feel insecure and instead of getting to action themselves wonder if they can really do it, as it is so defined into details what “it shall be about”.
Cheers,
Maria

From:gaia [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: den 9 februari 2015 16:27
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'Matthew Ford'
Subject: Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification


Hi all,



Mat has sent this suggestion:



> A general observation: I find the taxonomical aspect a bit lacking at present. I would

> like to have a sharper identification of the characteristics of identified alternative

> network types that distinguishes them. Is it the commercial model? Is it the

> centralisation or decentralisation of network management? The descriptions are fine

> as far as they go, but if there's something unique about the different types that

> clearly distinguishes them it would help to call that out better. Maybe a matrix of the

> various identified types of network and some of the important characteristics would

> be appropriate.



This is the current classification (section 2):



     2.1.  Community Networks

       2.1.1.  Free Networks

     2.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs

     2.3.  Shared infrastructure model

     2.4.  Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party stakeholders

     2.5.  Testbeds for research purposes



Mat, are you suggesting to include a table like this?:



             | Commercial model | centralization | technologies | typical   |

             |                  |                |              | scenarios |

             +------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------+

CNs          |                  |                |              |           |

WISPx        |                  |                |              |           |

Shared inf   |                  |                |              |           |

Crowdshared  |                  |                |              |           |

Testbeds     |                  |                |              |           |






_______________________________________________

gaia mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



--



---------------------------------------------------

Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>

Subdirector de Ord. Docente

ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación

D-204, Departamental III

Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)

Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Web personal: http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo<http://www.tsc.urjc.es/%7Ejavier.simo>


--

---------------------------------------------------
Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subdirector de Ord. Docente
ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación
D-204, Departamental III
Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Web personal: http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo