Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mitar,

First of all, thanks a lot for your detailed comments.

The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the first
version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion, the
draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG review.
So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying it.

We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those that we can
reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will never have a
document about this. The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we
will have to go back again, and this is something we should avoid.

Thanks a lot for your feedback,

Jose 

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de Mitar
> Enviado el: lunes, 11 de abril de 2016 1:54
> Para: gaia <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: [gaia] Comments on:
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I am participant in the open wireless network in Slovenia, wlan slovenija
> (https://wlan-si.net/) and I am writing to provide some feedback on the
draft. I am
> glad people are working on it. My list of comments is in no particular
order, mostly in
> order of reading. I am sorry if this will be long, but there are many
issues with the
> draft.
> 
> Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From our
network and
> from my experience talking to other community networks, I would claim that
many
> share also much more altruistic motivations. For example, our whole
network is
> build around principle that some of us have abundance of Internet
connectivity at
> home (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us
will
> share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course there are
other
> motivations why people participate, and everyone has a different mix of
those
> motivations, but I definitely think that the list should be extended to
include:
> 
> - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism
> - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees,
anti-censorship,
> decentralization to minimize control, showing that alternative is
possible)
> - building a new type of commons
> - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a say
in
> operations
> - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the community
(eg.
> http://tidepools.co/)
> - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other
extreme situations
> - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others,
empowering
> others to take their Internet connectivity into their own hands
> 
> An example of another network describing itself with much more of what I
am
> writing than what is currently on the list:
> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh
> 
> All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I remembered
without
> much thinking) for many community networks. I do not think the list in
section 4.2
> can ever be comprehensive, but I was really taken aback from its
economy-centric
> bias at the moment. Most community networks do not operate on that level.
It is of
> course present, but there are some other primary motivations why people
are doing
> it.
> 
> Section 4.4, technologies employed:
> 
> "Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some
villages."
> 
> Isn't this section about list of technologies? Why are those villages
mentioned?
> Optical systems can also be used elsewhere.
> 
> Moreover, in wlan slovenija we developed free optics free-space (no
> fiber) system Koruza (http://koruza.net/), which are useful especially in
high-density
> urban environments because of no interference.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Section 5, classification of alternative networks:
> 
> Introduction again focuses on incentives. That is a very limited
perspective. I would
> claim that most alternative networks go beyond just incentives, but exist
because of
> various beliefs: about how networks should operate, who should have
control over
> them, the importance of commons and community stewardship of commons, etc.
> 
> Section 5.1, community networks:
> 
> As I explained, goals and motivation here seems a pretty limited list and
I think you
> should include at least ones I listed above. But probably you should do a
survey and
> ask community networks what are their goals and motivations, instead of
trying to
> guess them. (If you have done such a survey, I would love to see data.)
> 
> Technologies used: TDMA should be there, Ubiquiti gear does it by default.
> 
> Typical scenarios: all
> 
> Community Networks are large-scale: not necessary, they can also be small,
city
> only. Some are large scale, some are small, some are focused on one
region, some
> are distributed around larger region, connected with VPN together.
> 
> "There is a shared platform (e.g.  a web site) where a minimum
coordination is
> performed.  This way, community members with the right permissions have an
> obvious and direct form of organizational control over the overall
operation of the
> network (e.g.  IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community (not just
their own
> participation in the network)."
> 
> This can be true, but it is not necessary so. There are community networks
with
> much larger focus on decentralization. Especially with
> IPv6 a lot more autoconfiguraiton is possible.
> 
> Also, phrase "this way" is strange in this context. I do not see how
control over the
> routing of the network has anything with the existence of the shared
platform? In
> wlan slovenija network we also use a web shared platform, but that
platform does
> not control the network. It just helps in coordination. Network would
operate even
> without it, just people would have a bit harder time coordinate about use
of IP space,
> and learning how to configure their nodes.
> 
> So having a shared platform can have very little to do with how core
network's
> resources (IP addresses, routings, peerings, DNS entries,
> etc.) are managed.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Isn't this definition of the Internet? Just replace "segment" with
"autonomous
> system" and "community network" with "Internet". :-)
> 
> So what exactly is the property which differentiates community networks?
Maybe
> there is none. Maybe community networks are simply trying to (re)build the
Internet,
> but this time having infrastructure owned by participants, which are not
just
> consumers, but are participating.
> 
> I think this is the most important characteristic. Organic growth, and
that people own
> the equipment, and thus the emergent network. This should be more clearly
> explained. So it is not so much about technology in community networks,
but about
> who owns and controls equipment (people/users/participants), and who
coordinates
> the network growth (people/users/participants). The line between users,
providers,
> participants, people gets blurred.
> 
> "In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has
> contributed.
> 
> Not necessary. They can also give it away (for example equipment for
backbone
> nodes). In general, mostly people do not really track ownership of
equipment,
> because they do not care about ownership if it is operating according to
common
> principles. And if it is not, it should not be in the network no matter
who owns the
> equipment.
> 
> Section 5.4, crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
stakeholders
> 
> "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, the
> network operators are paid by the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their
socio-
> environmental role."
> 
> I am not sure if all networks which can be grouped under this section
really do that.
> In the draft itself the https://openwireless.org/ movement is listed, but
no shares or
> money or any incentive structure is in place there for people to share
their extra
> Internet connectivity.
> 
> So I would change this paragraph to:
> 
> "VNOs can be organized to 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, the network operators are paid by the VNOs, who in
turn
> accomplish their socio-environmental role. But VNOs can also operate on
gift-
> economy principles, where participants contribute to the commons by
sharing their
> resources knowing that this benefits all."
> 
> Section 6.2.1,  Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for wireless links
> 
> "Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who
design, deploy
> and manage wireless networks."
> 
> Wireless standard ensure low-cost of equipment due to economies of scale
and
> mass production. This is the main reason I think why WiFi is so popular in
alternative
> networks. You can get a device for $10. And you can get this because
everyone is
> producing this hardware, and the hardware is not just made for the
alternative
> networks. In contrast, traditional ISPs use hardware which is developed
only for
> them. Even if they are big ISP, number of units is still much smaller than
number of
> WiFi routers produced for the global market.
> 
> Question about list of WiFi standards in this draft. Why is that needed?
Why
> properties and descriptions of those standards should be in this draft?
They belong
> to Wikipedia, or their own standard. In this draft we can just reference
those
> standards. Like what of all this text is relevant to alternative networks?
It is general
> text which is true for any use:
> 
> "802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] is a standard developed specifically for long
range rural
> communications in TV white space frequencies and first approved in July
2011. The
> standard is similar to the 802.16
> (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] standard with an added cognitive radio ability.
The
> maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps 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 (CPEs) are sent before slots
> destined for nearby CPEs.
> 
> 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 white space TV 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."
> 
> Section 7.1.2.2, mesh routing protocols
> 
> "A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State
Routing
> Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626]."
> 
> Not really. Networks use OLSR as implemented by http://olsr.org/, which is
far from
> the standardized OLSR in RFC3626. For example, in practice, ETX metric is
used,
> which is not even mentioned in RFC3626.
> 
> Also Babel should definitely be mentioned, it is used in many networks,
and it is
> even (properly) standardized as RFC6126. So if you want to include a
routing
> protocol for alternative networks with IETF standard, you should include
this one for
> sure.
> 
> Section 7.2.1, traffic management when sharing network resources
> 
> It is interesting that so many people believe that there have to be some
special
> prioritization done for sharers to be able to use APs.
> But it is not necessary true. Often people connecting to open AP nodes
will be much
> further away from the AP than the sharer. So often just this distance
already
> influences that the users of open network are prioritized less (they have
higher
> packet loss, lower bitrate, which is also good to limit the lowest allowed
bitrate).
> 
> In community networks is also pretty common to run the network itself on
different
> frequencies than the APs. Some first generation mesh networks ran
everything
> (backbone over ad-hoc) and client-serving APs on the same channel, but
with 5
> GHz spectrum and cheap dual-band devices this is often separated now.
> 
> Section 7.3., services provided
> 
> What is this section? A non-comprehensive list of services on the Internet
and
> networks in general? This looks pretty useless section which would not
inform
> anyone reading this draft of anything about alternative networks.
> 
> If something, then it would be interesting to talk about specialized
services
> developed just for community/alternative networks:
> 
> - Inter-network peering/VPNs: https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN
> - Local wikis like: https://localwiki.org
> - Community oriented portals: http://tidepools.co/
> - Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms
> - VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between countries
> - Sensor networks and citizen science build by adding sensors to devices
> - Community radio/TV stations
> 
> What is interesting that some networks do not even provide Internet
access. For
> example, in Croatia, historically, there were wireless communities which
made
> networks in villages just to be able to play games.
> 
> Section 7.3.2.1, web browsing proxies
> 
> "Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually allowed in many
Alternative
> Networks due to bandwidth limitations."
> 
> That would go against net neutrality and anti-censorship principles which
are
> important in many other alternative networks. So the question how
informative this
> sentence is, because for some maybe this is true, for some it is not, and
some
> probably are build just around this. Others probably address this with
innovative
> solutions like internal file servers.
> 
> At the end, a general question, how would DIY ISPs
> (https://www.diyisp.org/) be categorized according to this draft? To me is
unclear.
> 
> Some more projects to look into, and think how they relate to this draft:
> 
> https://rhizomatica.org/
> http://www.servalproject.org/
> http://villagetelco.org/
> 
> 
> Mitar
> 
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia