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

"Jose Saldana" <> Tue, 15 December 2015 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134C01A1B77 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:38:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jr0fR45vwIPr for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:38:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E3AE1A1B6C for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:38:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id tBFAcYc9016836; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:38:34 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <>
To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Andr=E9s_Arcia-Moret'?=" <>, "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Javier_Sim=F3'?=" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:38:39 +0100
Message-ID: <00a801d13724$c2d20870$48761950$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A9_01D1372D.2498BA60"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQGHPmcGkHmCgKHDGMH+I/aVxR4NSAJ66U8nAfwJiGMBDnE99AHL48E9nyU9VeA=
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:38:47 -0000

I also prefer “alternative” for two reasons:
- I think the word fits better with the networks we had in mind while
writing the draft: 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:
Thanks a lot!
De: Andrés Arcia-Moret [] 
Enviado el: lunes, 14 de diciembre de 2015 14:51
Para: Javier Simó <>
CC: jsaldana <>es>;
Asunto: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call:
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.. 
On 14 Dec 2015, at 09:48, Javier Simó <
<> > wrote:

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

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


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
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?
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?
On 1 December 2015 at 16:28, Mat Ford < <>
> wrote:

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.

gaia mailing list <>

Arjuna Sathiaseelan 
N4D Lab:
gaia mailing list <>

gaia mailing list <>

Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas  <>
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:
gaia mailing list <>