IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> Thu, 14 April 2016 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mmitar@gmail.com>
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 8E35712E160 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 gQBI9iQQkVRM for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x244.google.com (mail-io0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 100CA12DF5C for <gaia@irtf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x244.google.com with SMTP id s2so9570593iod.3 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=aaXRcZwt79ety/vl4kzgPQFs5cxZp15mxu32kjUKCNc=; b=AVSrLDqBePkhW6/liruRy6lUYMkpS8S4UTxzzGMN/gYHlIItFp/KgbhTZjIqtUKXxv QF/7XI4ryDvLPa3dNGJcpJ+Mk/lPgY8AIooDVMpGndbM8DUBZHvy1YFGG8V7L8M/X4Yk I1q7zXz9gi0cyma6rISyVRhtuw4HitNHmL3nvqUeNlkUoC1xG/T9VVqonp/wf1ABE3XD rQZBz2q0n7RAxOZtZz70+dpFk4AJSytTbgHFkYMbAsvJ/xqle2mostHrKh0jXsZ2pZCg 7ST4WFrGjC7pSyjTYJpkmel0ceVeiLqY86O4BX7ILmGHXbF2onJ3F/dYKeKA1JBBGycI +Wlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=aaXRcZwt79ety/vl4kzgPQFs5cxZp15mxu32kjUKCNc=; b=b1cz+6eyxjaPvJiJEgEhKvFezK4nk/XmqBr8uiZcjkHP6iymhEzrImfAH7ubIfs9TA e+qMP9QuGeu0smZNK7XjjOG6gGoiG2AGXZFKcvQ1emoEORWT/8HMlqytT4ZqCKXckf0O Ibll6TSgeNKjoU3matSPGkP4unB0C0y1wrp6b5gKFqNsR4nkjksjJE0NlA+BwyQssCBi G5myYtcMAG04iKH7BqZ08lYHfxsf0uzv/HxfI2AhnZby86YBsNn06Uy190Rc0swilQEc fVgmBraoFOOWPriS7Mg056CZkuD9D2BgZHHW1AJVC2k2xlFJDVPCZMakp54dl45CPDLg MTdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWVWJ5+QggDjxGEM41HZuGceQNlkFh/ioCuDggZ5Y3s4sIdGjHGXzZJ9rO5tza7lQJrTWw/Nih8OUEtpQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.134.8 with SMTP id i8mr13427176iod.130.1460608667497; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.13.76 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACDvGuec+L3LpQLUdVq9QD1tMfx3BAmXrg3ScAxzLrrNkc5FhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005a01d194c5$96d7d390$c4877ab0$@unizar.es> <CACDvGudjKEsyt-4CJNmREOfJN+c3yKWYWQL3_cBuW+Nkv6BwAg@mail.gmail.com> <CACgrgBaTKKzQx7j05xVMquaamPeOyvWoM4eUD0RJPd4YxochQA@mail.gmail.com> <B65CAC3D-FDA8-4CB2-A65A-35EC94A8B9C8@mac.com> <CAPaG1An-DF7iFzMakDC3Q1T7Oz-gXFRFeuSdb5+q5R9vOJRnNQ@mail.gmail.com> <570E3D4B.1000501@ulusofona.pt> <00a601d19598$39ef80a0$adce81e0$@unizar.es> <CACDvGuec+L3LpQLUdVq9QD1tMfx3BAmXrg3ScAxzLrrNkc5FhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:37:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKLmikP0EScbVN_NvhXGypVkz8LzspXM2zuUfncCrun66-VS6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>
To: "Eric A. BREWER" <brewer@berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/ugi-GR0QJeBLVoIB-lTY8q0lR64>
Cc: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>, rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt, Jim Forster <jrforster@mac.com>, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>, Arjuna Sathiaseelan <arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
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: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 04:37:49 -0000

Hi!

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Eric A. BREWER <brewer@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> The important point really is the population density more than anything
> else.

+1

Yes. Because in low density areas there is less commercial interest
and alternative networks can then step in.

> I might not fit, but I think the rural definition is actually very important
> for another reason --- we need a good one for policy makers.  In particular,
> we want policies that help rural networks, but the US definition at least
> has hurt things.  In particular, FCC has options for secondary licenses for
> under-served areas, but the areas are census blocks, which are bad proxy for
> rural. The consequence is that carriers cover tiny part of a mostly rural
> block, and then the whole block counts as covered.
>
> We want to encourage the idea that blocks with low population density are
> the important policy-relevant idea of "rural" and those boundaries should
> mostly avoid mixing urban and rural areas.  Having smaller blocks might be
> enough, but even so, the reasoning should be explicit.

+1


Mitar

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email