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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Thu, 17 December 2015 08:31 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 582C01B2B34 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:31:32 -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 IvEWmgNXrYX6 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:31:29 -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 605811B2B33 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:31:28 -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 tBH8UeA7016338; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:30:41 +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> <5671AD08.1050901@altermundi.net>
In-Reply-To: <5671AD08.1050901@altermundi.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:30:47 +0100
Message-ID: <008601d138a5$3acdcc20$b0696460$@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/aVxR4NSAJ66U8nAfwJiGMBDnE99AHL48E9AaQDM3kCI8rgFgIu/BOcnviMZPA=
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/foQX9YKpf-MDlOh1t8-FGQWcYwg>
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 08:31:32 -0000

Hi,

I think the "profit" or "non-profit" characteristic is somewhat included in
the "Goals and motivation" section:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-
02#section-3.2

Thanks!

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Nicolás Echániz
> Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de diciembre de 2015 19:27
> Para: gaia@irtf.org
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call:
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
> 
> one last thing...  another way of grouping networks is "for profit" and
"not for profit"
> (academic, community, testbeds, etc.); in my opinion, those run by for
profit
> organizations would fall in for profit category, even if they are free of
charge.
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/16/2015 03:21 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
> >
> > 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