IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Tue, 12 April 2016 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
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 4ADCE12EC5D for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KUaNBSYvndUo for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B24EA12EC22 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3CEE9Ex008920; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:14:09 +0200
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: 'Mitar' <mmitar@gmail.com>, 'gaia' <gaia@irtf.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:14:12 +0200
Message-ID: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdGUxT0EaNpKPNPaTHeNZkQRlYJOFA==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/UvFgNC3dEyq8g1Q_V6S9bK-dmhE>
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 14:14:22 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email