GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7962

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) J. Saldana, Ed. Request for Comments: 7962 University of Zaragoza Category: Informational A. Arcia-Moret ISSN: 2070-1721 University of Cambridge

                                                              B. Braem
                                                                iMinds
                                                       E. Pietrosemoli
                                                  The Abdus Salam ICTP
                                                       A. Sathiaseelan
                                               University of Cambridge
                                                            M. Zennaro
                                                  The Abdus Salam ICTP
                                                           August 2016
                  Alternative Network Deployments:
    Taxonomy, Characterization, Technologies, and Architectures

Abstract

 This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative Network
 Deployments" that emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing
 Internet connectivity to people or providing a local communication
 infrastructure to serve various complementary needs and objectives.
 They employ architectures and topologies different from those of
 mainstream networks and rely on alternative governance and business
 models.
 The document also surveys the technologies deployed in these
 networks, and their differing architectural characteristics,
 including a set of definitions and shared properties.
 The classification considers models such as Community Networks,
 Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), networks owned by
 individuals but leased out to network operators who use them as a
 low-cost medium to reach the underserved population, networks that
 provide connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users, and
 rural utility cooperatives.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
 (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
 and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
 deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus of the Global Access
 to the Internet for All Research Group of the Internet Research Task
 Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not
 a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7962.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   1.1.  Mainstream Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   1.2.  Alternative Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 2.  Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 3.  Scenarios Where Alternative Networks Are Deployed . . . . . .   7
   3.1.  Urban vs. Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.2.  Topology Patterns Followed by Alternative Networks  . . .   9
 4.  Classification Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.1.  Entity behind the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.2.  Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.3.  Governance and Sustainability Model . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.4.  Technologies Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.5.  Typical Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 5.  Classification of Alternative Networks  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.1.  Community Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) . . . . . . .  16
   5.3.  Shared Infrastructure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.4.  Crowdshared Approaches Led by the Users and Third-Party
         Stakeholders  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   5.5.  Rural Utility Cooperatives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   5.6.  Testbeds for Research Purposes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
 6.  Technologies Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.1.  Wired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.2.  Wireless  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     6.2.1.  Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless
             Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       6.2.1.1.  802.11 (Wi-Fi)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       6.2.1.2.  Mobile Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       6.2.1.3.  Dynamic Spectrum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
 7.  Upper Layers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   7.1.  Layer 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.1.1.  IP Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.1.2.  Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       7.1.2.1.  Traditional Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . .  26
       7.1.2.2.  Mesh Routing Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.2.  Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     7.2.1.  Traffic Management When Sharing Network Resources . .  27
   7.3.  Services Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     7.3.1.  Use of VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     7.3.2.  Other Facilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   7.4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
 8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
 Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

1. Introduction

 One of the aims of the Global Access to the Internet for All (GAIA)
 IRTF Research Group is "to document and share deployment experiences
 and research results to the wider community through scholarly
 publications, white papers, Informational and Experimental RFCs,
 etc."  [GAIA].  In line with this objective, this document proposes a
 classification of "Alternative Network Deployments".  This term
 includes a set of network access models that have emerged in the last
 decade with the aim of providing Internet connections, following
 topological, architectural, governance, and business models that
 differ from the so-called "mainstream" ones, where a company deploys
 the infrastructure connecting the users, who pay a subscription fee
 to be connected and make use of it.
 Several initiatives throughout the world have built these large-scale
 networks, using predominantly wireless technologies (including long
 distance links) due to the reduced cost of using unlicensed spectrum.
 Wired technologies such as fiber are also used in some of these
 networks.
 The classification considers several types of alternate deployments:
 Community Networks are self-organized networks wholly owned by the
 community; networks acting as Wireless Internet Service Providers
 (WISPs); networks owned by individuals but leased out to network
 operators who use such networks as a low-cost medium to reach the
 underserved population; networks that provide connectivity by sharing
 wireless resources of the users; and finally there are some rural
 utility cooperatives also connecting their members to the Internet.
 The emergence of these networks has been motivated by a variety of
 factors such as the lack of wired and cellular infrastructures in
 rural/remote areas [Pietrosemoli].  In some cases, Alternative
 Networks may provide more localized communication services as well as
 Internet backhaul support through peering agreements with mainstream
 network operators.  In other cases, they are built as a complement or
 an alternative to commercial Internet access provided by mainstream
 network operators.
 The present document is intended to provide a broad overview of
 initiatives, technologies, and approaches employed in these networks,
 including some real examples.  References describing each kind of
 network are also provided.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

1.1. Mainstream Networks

 In this document, we will use the term "mainstream networks" to
 denote those networks sharing these characteristics:
 o  Regarding scale, they are usually large networks spanning entire
    regions.
 o  Top-down control of the network and centralized approach.
 o  They require a substantial investment in infrastructure.
 o  Users in mainstream networks do not participate in the network
    design, deployment, operation, governance, and maintenance.
 o  Ownership of the network is never vested in the users themselves.

1.2. Alternative Networks

 The term "Alternative Network" proposed in this document refers to
 the networks that do not share the characteristics of "mainstream
 network deployments".  Therefore, they may share some of the
 following characteristics:
 o  Relatively small scale (i.e., not spanning entire regions).
 o  Administration may not follow a centralized approach.
 o  They may require a reduced investment in infrastructure, which may
    be shared by the users and commercial and non-commercial entities.
 o  Users in Alternative Networks may participate in the network
    design, deployment, operation, and maintenance.
 o  Ownership of the network is often vested in the users.

2. Terms Used in This Document

 Considering the role that the Internet currently plays in everyday
 life, this document touches on complex social, political, and
 economic issues.  Some of the concepts and terminology used have been
 the subject of study of various disciplines outside the field of
 networking and are responsible for long debates whose resolution is
 out of the scope of this document.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 o  "Global north" and "global south".  Although there is no consensus
    on the terms to be used when talking about the different
    development level of countries, we will employ the term "global
    south" to refer to nations with a relatively lower standard of
    living.  This distinction is normally intended to reflect basic
    economic country conditions.  In common practice, Japan in Asia,
    Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and
    New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed"
    regions or areas [UN], so we will employ the term "global north"
    when talking about them.
 o  The "Digital Divide".  The following dimensions are considered to
    be meaningful when measuring the digital development state of a
    country: infrastructures (availability and affordability), the
    Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector (human
    capital and technological industry), digital literacy, legal and
    regulatory framework, and content and services.  A lack of digital
    development in one or more of these dimensions is what has been
    referred as the "Digital Divide" [Norris].  It should be noted
    that this "Divide" is not only present between different countries
    but between zones of the same country, despite its degree of
    development.
 o  "Urban" and "rural" zones.  There is no single definition of
    "rural" or "urban", as each country and various international
    organizations define these terms differently, mainly based on the
    number of inhabitants, the population density, and the distance
    between houses [UNStats].  For networking purposes, the primary
    distinction is likely the average distance between customers,
    typically measured by population density, as well as the distance
    to the nearest Internet point-of-presence, i.e., the distance to
    be covered by "middle mile" or backhaul connectivity.  Some
    regions with low average population density may cluster almost all
    inhabitants into a small number of relatively dense small towns,
    for example, while residents may be dispersed more evenly in
    others.
 o  Demand.  In economics, it describes a consumer's desire and
    willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service.
 o  Provision is the act of making an asset available for sale.  In
    this document, we will mainly use it as the act of making a
    network service available to the inhabitants of a zone.
 o  Underserved area.  Area in which the telecommunication market
    permanently fails to provide the information and communications
    services demanded by the population.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 o  Free, open, and neutral networks.  Their principles have been
    summarized this way [Baig]:
  • You have the freedom to use the network for any purpose as long

as you do not harm the operation of the network itself, the

       rights of other users, or the principles of neutrality that
       allow contents and services to flow without deliberate
       interference.
  • You have the right to understand the network, to know its

components, and to spread knowledge of its mechanisms and

       principles.
  • You have the right to offer services and content to the network

on your own terms.

  • You have the right to join the network, and the responsibility

to extend this set of rights to anyone according to these same

       terms.

3. Scenarios Where Alternative Networks Are Deployed

 Different studies have reported that as much as 60% of the people on
 the planet do not have Internet connectivity [Sprague]
 [InternetStats].  In addition, those unconnected are unevenly
 distributed: only 31% of the population in "global south" countries
 had access in 2014, against 80% in "global north" countries
 [WorldBank2016].  This is one of the reasons behind the inclusion of
 the objective to "significantly increase access to information and
 communications technology and strive to provide universal and
 affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by
 2020," as one of the targets in the Sustainable Development Goals
 (SDGs) [SDG], considered as a part of "Goal 9.  Build resilient
 infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization
 and foster innovation."
 For the purpose of this document, a distinction between "global
 north" and "global south" zones is made, highlighting the factors
 related to ICT, which can be quantified in terms of:
 o  The availability of both national and international bandwidth, as
    well as equipment.
 o  The difficulty in paying for the services and the devices required
    to access the ICTs.
 o  The instability and/or lack of power supply.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 o  The scarcity of qualified staff.
 o  The existence of a policy and regulatory framework that hinders
    the development of these models in favor of state monopolies or
    incumbents.
 In this context, the World Summit of the Information Society [WSIS]
 aimed at achieving "a people-centred, inclusive and development-
 oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access,
 utilize and share information and knowledge.  Therefore, enabling
 individuals, communities and people to achieve their full potential
 in promoting their sustainable development and improving their
 quality of life".  It also called upon "governments, private sector,
 civil society and international organizations" to actively engage to
 work towards the bridging of the digital divide.
 Some Alternative Networks have been deployed in underserved areas,
 where citizens may be compelled to take a more active part in the
 design and implementation of ICT solutions.  However, Alternative
 Networks (e.g., [Baig]) are also present in some "global north"
 countries, being built as an alternative to commercial ones managed
 by mainstream network operators.
 The consolidation of a number of mature Alternative Networks (e.g.,
 Community Networks) sets a precedent for civil society members to
 become more active in the search for alternatives to provide
 themselves with affordable access.  Furthermore, Alternative Networks
 could contribute to bridge the digital divide by increasing human
 capital and promoting the creation of localized content and services.

3.1. Urban vs. Rural Areas

 The differences presented in the previous section are not only
 present between countries, but within them too.  This is especially
 the case for rural inhabitants, who represent approximately 55% of
 the world's population [IFAD2011], with 78% of them in "global south"
 countries [ITU2011].  According to the World Bank, adoption gaps
 "between rural and urban populations are falling for mobile phones
 but increasing for the internet" [WorldBank2016].
 Although it is impossible to generalize among them, there exist some
 common features in rural areas that have prevented incumbent
 operators from providing access and that, at the same time, challenge
 the deployment of alternative infrastructures [Brewer] [Nungu]
 [Simo_c].  For example, a high network latency was reported in
 [Johnson_b], which could be in the order of seconds during some
 hours.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 These challenges include:
 o  Low per capita income, as the local economy is mainly based on
    subsistence agriculture, farming, and fishing.
 o  Scarcity or absence of basic infrastructures, such as electricity,
    water, and access roads.
 o  Low population density and distance (spatial or effective) between
    population clusters.
 o  Underdeveloped social services, such as healthcare and education.
 o  Lack of adequately educated and trained technicians, and high
    potential for those (few) trained to leave the community
    incentivized by better opportunities, higher salaries, or the
    possibility of starting their own companies [McMahon].
 o  High cost of Internet access [Mathee].
 o  Harsh environments leading to failure in electronic communication
    devices [Johnson_a], which reduces the reliability of the network.
 Some of these factors challenge the stability of Alternative Networks
 and the services they provide: scarcity of spectrum, scale, and
 heterogeneity of devices.  However, the proliferation of Alternative
 Networks [Baig] together with the raising of low-cost, low-
 consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices have
 allowed and simplified the deployment and maintenance of alternative
 infrastructures in rural areas.

3.2. Topology Patterns Followed by Alternative Networks

 Alternative Networks, considered self-managed and self-sustained,
 follow different topology patterns [Vega_a].  Generally, these
 networks grow spontaneously and organically, that is, the network
 grows without specific planning and deployment strategy and the
 routing core of the network tends to fit a power law distribution.
 Moreover, these networks are composed of a high number of
 heterogeneous devices with the common objective of freely connecting
 and increasing the network coverage and the reliability.  Although
 these characteristics increase the entropy (e.g., by increasing the
 number of routing protocols), they have resulted in an inexpensive
 solution to effectively increase the network size.  One such example
 is Guifi.net [Vega_a], which has had an exponential growth rate in
 the number of operating nodes during the last decade.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 Regularly, rural areas in these networks are connected through long-
 distance links and/or wireless mesh networks, which in turn convey
 the Internet connection to relevant organizations or institutions.
 In contrast, in urban areas, users tend to share and require mobile
 access.  Since these areas are also likely to be covered by
 commercial ISPs, the provision of wireless access by virtual
 operators like [Fon] may constitute a way to extend the user capacity
 to the network.  Other proposals like "Virtual Public Networks"
 [Sathiaseelan_a] can also extend the service.

4. Classification Criteria

 The classification of Alternative Network Deployments, presented in
 this document, is based on the following criteria:

4.1. Entity behind the Network

 The entity (or entities) or individuals behind an Alternative Network
 can be:
 o  A community of users.
 o  A public stakeholder.
 o  A private company.
 o  Supporters of a crowdshared approach.
 o  A community that already owns the infrastructure and shares it
    with an operator, who, in turn, may also use it for backhauling
    purposes.
 o  A research or academic entity.
 The above actors may play different roles in the design, financing,
 deployment, governance, and promotion of an Alternative Network.  For
 example, each of the members of a Community Network maintains the
 ownership over the equipment they have contributed, whereas in others
 there is a single entity, e.g., a private company who owns the
 equipment, or at least a part of it.

4.2. Purpose

 Alternative Networks can be classified according to their purpose and
 the benefits they bring compared to mainstream solutions, regarding
 economic, technological, social, or political objectives.  These
 benefits could be enjoyed mostly by the actors involved (e.g.,
 lowering costs or gaining technical expertise) or by the local

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 community (e.g., Internet access in underserved areas) or by the
 society as a whole (e.g., network neutrality).
 The benefits provided by Alternative Networks include, but are not
 limited to:
 o  Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities).
 o  Providing affordable Internet access for all.
 o  Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end
    user, or both).
 o  Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional
    carrier-based financing).
 o  Reducing ongoing operational costs (such as backhaul or network
    administration).
 o  Leveraging expertise and having a place for experimentation and
    teaching.
 o  Reducing hurdles to adoption (e.g., digital literacy, literacy in
    general, and relevance).
 o  Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and
    other extreme situations.
 o  Community building, social cohesion, and quality of life
    improvement.
 o  Experimentation with alternative governance and ownership models
    for treating network infrastructures as a commons.
 o  Raising awareness of political debates around issues like network
    neutrality, knowledge sharing, access to resources, and more.
 Note that the different purposes of Alternative Networks can be more
 or less explicitly stated and they could also evolve over time based
 on the internal dynamics and external events.  For example, the Red
 Hook WIFI network in Brooklyn [Redhook] started as a Community
 Network focusing more on local applications and community building
 [TidePools], but it became widely known when it played a key role as
 an alternative service available during the Sandy storm [Tech]
 [NYTimes].

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 Moreover, especially for those networks with more open and horizontal
 governance models, the underlying motivations of those involved may
 be very diverse, ranging from altruistic ones related to the desire
 of free sharing of Internet connectivity and various forms of
 activism to personal benefits from the experience and expertise
 through the active participation in the deployment and management of
 a real and operational network.

4.3. Governance and Sustainability Model

 Different governance models are present in Alternative Networks.
 They may range from some open and horizontal models, with an active
 participation of the users (e.g., Community Networks) to a more
 centralized model, where a single authority (e.g., a company or a
 public stakeholder) plans and manages the network, even if it is
 (total or partially) owned by a community.
 Regarding sustainability, some networks grow "organically" as a
 result of the new users who join and extend the network, contributing
 their own hardware.  In some other cases, the existence of previous
 infrastructure (owned by the community or the users) may lower the
 capital expenditures of an operator, who can therefore provide the
 service with better economic conditions.

4.4. Technologies Employed

 o  Standard Wi-Fi.  Many Alternative Networks are based on the
    standard IEEE 802.11 [IEEE.802.11] using the Distributed
    Coordination Function.
 o  Wi-Fi-based Long Distance (WiLD) networks.  These can work with
    either Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance
    (CSMA/CA) or an alternative Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)
    Media Access Control (MAC) [Simo_b].
 o  TDMA.  It can be combined with a Wi-Fi protocol, in a non-standard
    way [airMAX].  This configuration allows each client to send and
    receive data using pre-designated timeslots.
 o  802.16-compliant (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
    (WiMax)) [IEEE.802.16] systems over non-licensed bands.
 o  Dynamic Spectrum Solutions (e.g., based on the use of TV White
    Spaces).  A set of television frequencies that can be utilized by
    secondary users in locations where they are unused, e.g., IEEE
    802.11af [IEEE.802.11AF] or 802.22 [IEEE.802.22].

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 o  Satellite solutions can also be employed to give coverage to wide
    areas, as proposed in the RIFE project (https://rife-project.eu/).
 o  Low-cost optical fiber systems are also used to connect households
    in different places.

4.5. Typical Scenarios

 The scenarios where Alternative Networks are usually deployed can be
 classified as:
 o  Urban/rural areas.
 o  "Global north" / "global south" countries.

5. Classification of Alternative Networks

 This section classifies Alternative Networks according to the
 criteria explained previously.  Each of them has different incentive
 structures, maybe common technological challenges, but most
 importantly interesting usage challenges that feed into the
 incentives as well as the technological challenges.
 At the beginning of each subsection, a table is presented including a
 classification of each network according to the criteria listed in
 the "Classification Criteria" subsection.  Real examples of each kind
 of Alternative Network are cited.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

5.1. Community Networks

 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Entity behind  | community                                        |
 | the network    |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Purpose        | all the goals listed in Section 4.2 may be       |
 |                | present                                          |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Governance and | participatory administration model: non-         |
 | sustainability | centralized and open building and maintenance;   |
 | model          | users may contribute their own hardware          |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Technologies   | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802.11] (standard and non-standard   |
 | employed       | versions) and optical fiber                      |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Typical        | urban and rural                                  |
 | scenarios      |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
        Table 1: Characteristics Summary for Community Networks
 Community Networks are non-centralized, self-managed networks sharing
 these characteristics:
 o  They start and grow organically, and they are open to
    participation from everyone, sharing an open participation
    agreement.  Community members directly contribute active (not just
    passive) network infrastructure.  The network grows as new hosts
    and links are added.
 o  Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership
    of the network itself is non-centralized and open.  Different
    degrees of centralization can be found in Community Networks.  In
    some of them, a shared platform (e.g., a website) may exist where
    minimum coordination is performed.  Community members with the
    right permissions have an obvious and direct form of
    organizational control over the overall organization of the
    network (e.g., IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community
    (not just their own participation in the network).
 o  The network can serve as a backhaul for providing a whole range of
    services and applications, from completely free to even commercial
    services.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 Hardware and software used in Community Networks can be very diverse
 and customized, even inside one network.  A Community Network can
 have both wired and wireless links.  Multiple routing protocols or
 network topology management systems may coexist in the network.
 These networks grow organically, since they are formed by the
 aggregation of nodes belonging to different users.  A minimal
 governance infrastructure is required in order to coordinate IP
 addressing, routing, etc.  Several examples of Community Networks are
 described in [Braem].  A technological analysis of a Community
 Network is presented in [Vega_b], which focuses on technological
 network diversity, topology characteristics, the evolution of the
 network over time, robustness and reliability, and networking service
 availability.
 These networks follow a participatory administration model, which has
 been shown to be effective in connecting geographically dispersed
 people, thus enhancing and extending digital Internet rights.
 Users adding new infrastructure (i.e., extensibility) can be used to
 formulate another definition: 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.  The term "participant" refers to an
 individual, who may become the user, provider, and manager of the
 network at the same time.
 In Community Networks, profit can only be made by offering services
 and not simply by supplying the infrastructure, because the
 infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (mainstream Internet
 Service Providers base their business on the control of the
 infrastructure).  In Community Networks, everybody usually keeps the
 ownership of what he/she has contributed or leaves the stewardship of
 the equipment to the network as a whole (the commons), even loosing
 track of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of
 the community.
 The majority of Community Networks comply with the definition of Free
 Network, included in Section 2.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

5.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs)

 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Entity behind  | company                                          |
 | the network    |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Purpose        | to serve underserved areas; to reduce capital    |
 |                | expenditures in Internet access; and to provide  |
 |                | additional sources of capital                    |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Governance and | operated by a company that provides the          |
 | sustainability | equipment; centralized administration            |
 | model          |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Technologies   | wireless, e.g., [IEEE.802.11] and [IEEE.802.16]  |
 | employed       | and unlicensed frequencies                       |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Typical        | rural (urban deployments also exist)             |
 | scenarios      |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
              Table 2: Characteristics Summary for WISPs
 WISPs are commercially operated wireless Internet networks that
 provide Internet and/or Voice over Internet (VoIP) services.  They
 are most common in areas not covered by mainstream telecommunications
 companies or ISPs.  WISPs mostly use wireless point-to-multipoint
 links using unlicensed spectrum but often must resort to licensed
 frequencies.  Use of licensed frequencies is common in regions where
 unlicensed spectrum is either perceived to be crowded or too
 unreliable to offer commercial services, or where unlicensed spectrum
 faces regulatory barriers impeding its use.
 Most WISPs are operated by local companies responding to a perceived
 market gap.  There is a small but growing number of WISPs, such as
 [Airjaldi] in India, that have expanded from local service into
 multiple locations.
 Since 2006, the deployment of cloud-managed WISPs has been possible
 with hardware from companies such as [Meraki] and later [OpenMesh]
 and others.  Until recently, however, most of these services have
 been aimed at "global north" markets.  In 2014, a cloud-managed WISP
 service aimed at "global south" markets was launched [Everylayer].

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

5.3. Shared Infrastructure Model

 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Entity behind  | shared: companies and users                      |
 | the network    |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Purpose        | to eliminate a capital expenditures barrier (to  |
 |                | operators); lower the operating expenses         |
 |                | (supported by the community); and extend         |
 |                | coverage to underserved areas                    |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Governance and | the community rents the existing infrastructure  |
 | sustainability | to an operator                                   |
 | model          |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Technologies   | wireless in non-licensed bands, mobile           |
 | employed       | femtocells, WiLD networks [WiLD], and/or low-    |
 |                | cost fiber                                       |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Typical        | rural areas, and more particularly rural areas   |
 | scenarios      | in "global south" regions                        |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
      Table 3: Characteristics Summary for Shared Infrastructure
 In mainstream networks, the operator usually owns the
 telecommunications infrastructure required for the service or
 sometimes rents infrastructure to/from other companies.  The problem
 arises in large areas with low population density, in which neither
 the operator nor the other companies have deployed infrastructure and
 such deployments are not likely to happen due to the low potential
 return on investment.
 When users already own deployed infrastructure, either individually
 or as a community, sharing that infrastructure with an operator can
 benefit both parties and is a solution that has been deployed in some
 areas.  For the operator, this provides a significant reduction in
 the initial investment needed to provide services in small rural
 localities because capital expenditure is only associated with the
 access network.  Renting capacity in the users' network for
 backhauling only requires an increment in the operating expenditure.
 This approach also benefits the users in two ways: they obtain
 improved access to telecommunications services that would not be
 accessible otherwise, and they can derive some income from the
 operator that helps to offset the network's operating costs,
 particularly for network maintenance.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 One clear example of the potential of the "shared infrastructure
 model" nowadays is the deployment of 3G services in rural areas in
 which there is a broadband rural Community Network.  Since the
 inception of femtocells (small, low-power cellular base stations),
 there are complete technical solutions for low-cost 3G coverage using
 the Internet as a backhaul.  If a user or community of users has an
 IP network connected to the Internet with some excess capacity,
 placing a femtocell in the user premises benefits both the user and
 the operator, as the user obtains better coverage and the operator
 does not have to support the cost of the backhaul infrastructure.
 Although this paradigm was conceived for improved indoor coverage,
 the solution is feasible for 3G coverage in underserved rural areas
 with low population density (i.e., villages), where the number of
 simultaneous users and the servicing area are small enough to use
 low-cost femtocells.  Also, the amount of traffic produced by these
 cells can be easily transported by most community broadband rural
 networks.
 Some real examples can be referenced in the TUCAN3G project, which
 deployed demonstrator networks in two regions in the Amazon forest in
 Peru [Simo_d].  In these networks [Simo_a], the operator and several
 rural communities cooperated to provide services through rural
 networks built up with WiLD links [WiLD].  In these cases, the
 networks belonged to the public health authorities and were deployed
 with funds that came from international cooperation for telemedicine
 purposes.  Publications that justify the feasibility of this approach
 can also be found on that website.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

5.4. Crowdshared Approaches Led by the Users and Third-Party

    Stakeholders
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Entity behind  | community, public stakeholders, private          |
 | the network    | companies, and supporters of a crowdshared       |
 |                | approach                                         |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Purpose        | sharing connectivity and resources               |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Governance and | users share their capacity, coordinated by a     |
 | sustainability | Virtual Network Operator (VNO); different models |
 | model          | may exist, depending on the nature of the VNO    |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Technologies   | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802.11]                              |
 | employed       |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | Typical        | urban and rural                                  |
 | scenarios      |                                                  |
 +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
      Table 4: Characteristics Summary for Crowdshared Approaches
 These networks can be defined as a set of nodes whose owners share
 common interests (e.g., sharing connectivity; resources; and
 peripherals) regardless of their physical location.  They conform to
 the following approach: the home router creates two wireless networks
 -- one of them is normally used by the owner, and the other one is
 public.  A small fraction of the bandwidth is allocated to the public
 network to be employed by any user of the service in the immediate
 area.  Some examples are described in [PAWS] and [Sathiaseelan_c].
 Other examples are found in the networks created and managed by city
 councils (e.g., [Heer]).  The "openwireless movement"
 (https://openwireless.org/) also promotes the sharing of private
 wireless networks.
 Some companies [Fon] also promote the use of Wi-Fi routers with dual
 access: a Wi-Fi network for the user and a shared one.  Adequate
 Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) policies are
 implemented, so people can join the network in different ways: they
 can buy a router, so they can share their connection and in turn,
 they get access to all the routers associated with the community.
 Some users can even get some revenue every time another user connects
 to their Wi-Fi Access Point.  Users that are not part of the
 community can buy passes in order to use the network.  Some
 mainstream telecommunications operators collaborate with these

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 communities by including the functionality required to create the two
 access networks in their routers.  Some of these efforts are surveyed
 in [Shi].
 The elements involved in a crowdshared network are summarized below:
 o  Interest: A parameter capable of providing a measure (cost) of the
    attractiveness of a node in a specific location, at a specific
    instance in time.
 o  Resources: A physical or virtual element of a global system.  For
    instance, bandwidth; energy; data; and devices.
 o  The owner: End users who sign up for the service and share their
    network capacity.  As a counterpart, they can access another
    owner's home network capacity for free.  The owner can be an end
    user or an entity (e.g., operator; virtual mobile network
    operator; or municipality) that is to be made responsible for any
    actions concerning his/her device.
 o  The user: A legal entity or an individual using or requesting a
    publicly available electronic communications service for private
    or business purposes, without necessarily having subscribed to
    such service.
 o  The VNO: An entity that acts in some aspects as a network
    coordinator.  It may provide services such as initial
    authentication or registration and, eventually, trust relationship
    storage.  A VNO is not an ISP given that it does not provide
    Internet access (e.g., infrastructure or naming).  A VNO is not an
    Application Service Provider (ASP) either since it does not
    provide user services.  VNOs may also be stakeholders with socio-
    environmental objectives.  They can be local governments,
    grassroots user communities, charities, or even content operators,
    smart grid operators, etc.  They are the ones who actually run the
    service.
 o  Network operators: They have a financial incentive to lease out
    unused capacity [Sathiaseelan_b] at a lower cost to the VNOs.
 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, and the network operators are paid by the
 VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

5.5. Rural Utility Cooperatives

 +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
 | Entity behind the   | rural utility cooperative                   |
 | network             |                                             |
 +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
 | Purpose             | to serve underserved areas and to reduce    |
 |                     | capital expenditures in Internet access     |
 +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
 | Governance and      | the cooperative partners with an ISP who    |
 | sustainability      | manages the network                         |
 | model               |                                             |
 +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
 | Technologies        | wired (fiber) and wireless                  |
 | employed            |                                             |
 +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
 | Typical scenarios   | rural                                       |
 +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
    Table 5: Characteristics Summary for Rural Utility Cooperatives
 A utility cooperative is a type of cooperative that delivers a public
 utility to its members.  For example, in the United States, rural
 electric cooperatives have provided electric service starting in the
 1930s, especially in areas where investor-owned utility would not
 provide service, believing there would be insufficient revenue to
 justify the capital expenditures required.  Similarly, in many
 regions with low population density, traditional Internet Service
 Providers such as telephone companies or cable TV companies are
 either not providing service at all or only offering low-speed DSL
 service.  Some rural electric cooperatives started installing fiber
 optic lines to run their smart grid applications, but they found they
 could provide fiber-based broadband to their members at little
 additional cost [Cash].  In some of these cases, rural electric
 cooperatives have partnered with local ISPs to provide Internet
 connection to their members [Carlson].  More information about these
 utilities and their management can be found in [NewMexico] and
 [Mitchell].

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

5.6. Testbeds for Research Purposes

 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
 | Entity behind    | research/academic entity                       |
 | the network      |                                                |
 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
 | Purpose          | research                                       |
 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
 | Governance and   | the management is initially coordinated by the |
 | sustainability   | research entity, but it may end up in a        |
 | model            | different model                                |
 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
 | Technologies     | wired and wireless                             |
 | employed         |                                                |
 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
 | Typical          | urban and rural                                |
 | scenarios        |                                                |
 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
             Table 6: Characteristics Summary for Testbeds
 In some cases, the initiative to start the network is not from the
 community but from a research entity (e.g., a university), with the
 aim of using it for research purposes [Samanta] [Bernardi].
 The administration of these networks may start being centralized in
 most cases (administered by the academic entity) and may end up in a
 non-centralized model in which other local stakeholders assume part
 of the network administration (for example, see [Rey]).

6. Technologies Employed

6.1. Wired

 In many ("global north" or "global south") countries, it may happen
 that national service providers decline to provide connectivity to
 tiny and isolated villages.  So in some cases, the villagers have
 created their own optical fiber networks.  This is the case in
 Lowenstedt, Germany [Lowenstedt] or in some parts of Guifi.net
 [Cerda-Alabern].

6.2. Wireless

 The vast majority of Alternative Network Deployments are based on
 different wireless technologies [WNDW].  Below we summarize the
 options and trends when using these features in Alternative Networks.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

6.2.1. Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless Links

 Different protocols for MAC, which also include physical layer (PHY)
 recommendations, are widely used in Alternative Network Deployments.
 Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who
 design, deploy, and manage wireless networks.  In addition, they then
 ensure the low cost of equipment due to economies of scale and mass
 production.
 The standards used in the vast majority of Alternative Networks come
 from the IEEE Standard Association's IEEE 802 Working Group.
 Standards developed by other international entities can also be used,
 such as, e.g., the European Telecommunications Standards Institute
 (ETSI).

6.2.1.1. 802.11 (Wi-Fi)

 The standard we are most interested in is 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, as it
 defines the protocol for Wireless LAN.  It is also known as "Wi-Fi".
 The original release (a/b) was issued in 1999 and allowed for rates
 up to 54 Mbit/s.  The latest release (802.11ac) approved in 2013
 reaches up to 866.7 Mbit/s.  In 2012, the IEEE issued an 802.11
 standard that consolidated all the previous amendments [IEEE.802.11].
 The document is freely downloadable from the IEEE Standards
 Association [IEEE].
 The MAC protocol in 802.11 is called CSMA/CA and was designed for
 short distances; the transmitter expects the reception of an
 acknowledgment for each transmitted unicast packet and if a certain
 waiting time is exceeded, the packet is retransmitted.  This behavior
 makes necessary the adaptation of several MAC parameters when 802.11
 is used in long links [Simo_b].  Even with this adaptation, distance
 has a significant negative impact on performance.  For this reason,
 many vendors implement alternative medium access techniques that are
 offered alongside the standard CSMA/CA in their outdoor 802.11
 products.  These alternative proprietary MAC protocols usually employ
 some type of TDMA.  Low-cost equipment using these techniques can
 offer high throughput at distances above 100 kilometers.
 Different specifications of 802.11 operate in different frequency
 bands. 802.11b/g/n operates in 2.4 GHz, but 802.11a/n/ac operates in
 5 GHz.  This fact is used in some Community Networks in order to
 separate ordinary and "backbone" nodes:
 o  Typical routers running mesh firmware in homes, offices, and
    public spaces operate at 2.4 GHz.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 o  Special routers running mesh firmware as well but broadcasting and
    receiving on the 5 GHz band are used in point-to-point connections
    only.  They are helpful to create a "backbone" on the network that
    can both connect neighborhoods to one another when reasonable
    connections with 2.4 GHz nodes are not possible, and they ensure
    that users of 2.4 GHz nodes are within a few hops to strong and
    stable connections to the rest of the network.

6.2.1.2. Mobile Technologies

 Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), from ETSI, has also
 been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained
 in [Mexican], [Village], and [Heimerl].  Open source GSM code
 projects such as OpenBTS (http://openbts.org) or OpenBSC
 (http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac/) have created an ecosystem with the
 participation of several companies such as, e.g., [Rangenetworks],
 [Endaga], and [YateBTS].  This enables deployments of voice, SMS, and
 Internet services over Alternative Networks with an IP-based
 backhaul.
 Internet navigation is usually restricted to relatively low bit rates
 (see, e.g., [Osmocom]).  However, leveraging on the evolution of
 Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards, a trend can be
 observed towards the integration of 4G [Spectrum] [YateBTS] or 5G
 [Openair] functionalities, with significant increase of achievable
 bit rates.
 Depending on factors such as the allocated frequency band, the
 adoption of licensed spectrum can have advantages over the eventually
 higher frequencies used for Wi-Fi, in terms of signal propagation
 and, consequently, coverage.  Other factors favorable to 3GPP
 technologies, especially GSM, are the low cost and energy consumption
 of handsets, which facilitate its use by low-income communities.

6.2.1.3. Dynamic Spectrum

 Some Alternative Networks make use of TV White Spaces [Lysko] -- a
 set of UHF and VHF television frequencies that can be utilized by
 secondary users in locations where they are unused by licensed
 primary users such as television broadcasters.  Equipment that makes
 use of TV White Spaces is required to detect the presence of existing
 unused TV channels by means of a spectrum database and/or spectrum
 sensing in order to ensure that no harmful interference is caused to
 primary users.  In order to smartly allocate interference-free
 channels to the devices, cognitive radios are used that are able to
 modify their frequency, power, and modulation techniques to meet the
 strict operating conditions required for secondary users.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 The use of the term "White Spaces" is often used to describe "TV
 White Spaces" as the VHF and UHF television frequencies were the
 first to be exploited on a secondary use basis.  There are two
 dominant standards for TV White Space communication: (i) the 802.11af
 standard [IEEE.802.11AF] -- an adaptation of the 802.11 standard for
 TV White Space bands -- and (ii) the IEEE 802.22 standard
 [IEEE.802.22] for long-range rural communication.

6.2.1.3.1. 802.11af

 802.11af [IEEE.802.11AF] is a modified version of the 802.11 standard
 operating in TV White Space bands using cognitive radios to avoid
 interference with primary users.  The standard is often referred to
 as "White-Fi" or "Super Wi-Fi" and was approved in February 2014.
 802.11af contains much of the advances of all the 802.11 standards
 including recent advances in 802.11ac such as up to four bonded
 channels, four spatial streams, and very high-rate 256 QAM
 (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) but with improved in-building
 penetration and outdoor coverage.  The maximum data rate achievable
 is 426.7 Mbit/s for countries with 6/7 MHz channels and 568.9 Mbit/s
 for countries with 8 MHz channels.  Coverage is typically limited to
 1 km although longer range at lower throughput and using high gain
 antennas will be possible.
 Devices are designated as enabling stations (Access Points) or
 dependent stations (clients).  Enabling stations are authorized to
 control the operation of a dependent station and securely access a
 geolocation database.  Once the enabling station has received a list
 of available White Space channels, it can announce a chosen channel
 to the dependent stations for them to communicate with the enabling
 station. 802.11af also makes use of a registered location server -- a
 local database that organizes the geographic location and operating
 parameters of all enabling stations.

6.2.1.3.2. 802.22

 802.22 [IEEE.802.22] is a standard developed specifically for long-
 range rural communications in TV White Space frequencies and was
 first approved in July 2011.  The standard is similar to the 802.16
 (WiMax) [IEEE.802.16] standard with an added cognitive radio ability.
 The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbit/s 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 (CPE) are sent before slots
 destined for nearby CPEs.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 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 TV White Space
 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.

7. Upper Layers

7.1. Layer 3

7.1.1. IP Addressing

 Most Community Networks use private IPv4 address ranges, as defined
 by [RFC1918].  The motivation for this was the lower cost and the
 simplified IP allocation because of the large available address
 ranges.
 Most known Alternative Networks started in or around the year 2000.
 IPv6 was fully specified by then, but almost all Alternative Networks
 still use IPv4.  A survey [Avonts] indicated that IPv6 rollout
 presented a challenge to Community Networks.  However, some of them
 have already adopted it, such as ninux.org.

7.1.2. Routing Protocols

 As stated in previous sections, Alternative Networks are composed of
 possibly different Layer 2 devices, resulting in a mesh of nodes.  A
 connection between different nodes is not guaranteed, and the link
 stability can vary strongly over time.  To tackle this, some
 Alternative Networks use mesh routing protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc
 Networks (MANETs), while other ones use more traditional routing
 protocols.  Some networks operate multiple routing protocols in
 parallel.  For example, they may use a mesh protocol inside different
 islands and rely on traditional routing protocols to connect these
 islands.

7.1.2.1. Traditional Routing Protocols

 The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as defined by [RFC4271], is used
 by a number of Community Networks because of its well-studied
 behavior and scalability.
 For similar reasons, smaller networks opt to run the Open Shortest
 Path First (OSPF) protocol, as defined by [RFC2328].

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 26] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

7.1.2.2. Mesh Routing Protocols

 A large number of Alternative Networks use customized versions of the
 Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Protocol [RFC3626].  The open
 source project [OLSR] has extended the protocol with the Expected
 Transmission Count (ETX) metric [Couto] and other features for its
 use in Alternative Networks, especially wireless ones.  A new version
 of the protocol, named OLSRv2 [RFC7181], is becoming used in some
 Community Networks [Barz].
 Better Approach To Mobile Ad Hoc Networking (B.A.T.M.A.N.) Advanced
 [Seither] is a Layer 2 routing protocol, which creates a bridged
 network and allows seamless roaming of clients between wireless
 nodes.
 Some networks also run the BatMan-eXperimental Version 6 (BMX6)
 protocol [Neumann_a], which is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the
 social structure of Alternative Networks.
 Babel [RFC6126] is a Layer 3 loop-avoiding distance-vector routing
 protocol that is robust and efficient both in wired and wireless mesh
 networks.
 In [Neumann_b], a study of three proactive mesh routing protocols
 (BMX6, OLSR, and Babel) is presented, in terms of scalability,
 performance, and stability.

7.2. Transport Layer

7.2.1. Traffic Management When Sharing Network Resources

 When network resources are shared (as, e.g., in the networks
 explained in Section 5.4), special care has to be taken with the
 management of the traffic at upper layers.  From a crowdshared
 perspective, and considering just regular TCP connections during the
 critical sharing time, the Access Point offering the service is
 likely to be the bottleneck of the connection.
 This is the main concern of sharers, having several implications.  In
 some cases, an adequate Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism that
 implements a Less-than-Best-Effort (LBE) [RFC6297] policy for the
 user is used to protect the sharer.  Achieving LBE behavior requires
 the appropriate tuning of well-known mechanisms such as Explicit
 Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168], Random Early Detection (RED)
 [RFC7567], or other more recent AQM mechanisms that aid low latency
 such as Controlled Delay (CoDel) [CoDel] and Proportional Integral
 controller Enhanced (PIE) [PIE] design.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 27] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

7.3. Services Provided

 This section provides an overview of the services provided by the
 network.  Many Alternative Networks can be considered Autonomous
 Systems, being (or aspiring to be) a part of the Internet.
 The services provided can include, but are not limited to:
 o  Web browsing.
 o  Email.
 o  Remote desktop (e.g., using my home computer and my Internet
    connection when I am away).
 o  FTP file sharing (e.g., distribution of software and media).
 o  VoIP (e.g., with SIP).
 o  Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing.
 o  Public video cameras.
 o  DNS.
 o  Online game servers.
 o  Jabber instant messaging.
 o  Weather stations.
 o  Network monitoring.
 o  Videoconferencing/streaming.
 o  Radio streaming.
 o  Message/bulletin board.
 o  Local cloud storage services.
 Due to bandwidth limitations, some services (file sharing, VoIP,
 etc.) may not be allowed in some Alternative Networks.  In some of
 these cases, a number of federated proxies provide web-browsing
 service for the users.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 28] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 Some specialized services have been specifically developed for
 Alternative Networks:
 o  Inter-network peering/VPNs
    (e.g., https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN).
 o  Community-oriented portals (e.g., http://tidepools.co/).
 o  Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms.
 o  VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between
    countries.
 o  Sensor networks and citizen science built by adding sensors to
    devices.
 o  Community radio/TV stations.
 Other services (e.g., local wikis as used in community portals; see
 https://localwiki.org) can also provide useful information when
 supplied through an Alternative Network, although they were not
 specifically created for them.

7.3.1. Use of VPNs

 Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing
 Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with
 Internet access.
 Many Community Networks also use VPNs to connect multiple disjoint
 parts of their networks together.  In some others, every node
 establishes a VPN tunnel as well.

7.3.2. Other Facilities

 Other facilities, such as NTP or Internet Relay Chat (IRC) servers
 may also be present in Alternative Networks.

7.4. Security Considerations

 No security issues have been identified for this document.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 29] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

8. Informative References

 [Airjaldi] AirJaldi Networks, "Airjaldi Service", 2015,
            <https://airjaldi.com/>.
 [airMAX]   Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., "airMAX", 2016,
            <https://www.ubnt.com/broadband/>.
 [Avonts]   Avonts, J., Braem, B., and C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire
            based Examination of Community Networks", IEEE 9th
            International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing,
            Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp. 8-15,
            DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2013.6673333, October 2013.
 [Baig]     Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., and L. Navarro,
            "guifi.net, a crowdsourced network infrastructure held in
            common", Computer Networks, Vol. 90, Issue C, pp. 150-165,
            DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009, October 2015.
 [Barz]     Barz, C., Fuchs, C., Kirchhoff, J., Niewiejska, J., and H.
            Rogge, "OLSRv2 for Community Networks", Computer Networks,
            Vol. 93, Issue P2, pp. 324-341, December 2015,
            <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.022>.
 [Bernardi] Bernardi, B., Buneman, P., and M. Marina, "Tegola Tiered
            Mesh Network Testbed in Rural Scotland", Proceedings of
            the 2008 ACM workshop on Wireless networks and systems for
            developing regions, pp. 9-16, DOI 10.1145/1410064.1410067,
            2008.
 [Braem]    Braem, B., Baig Vinas, R., Kaplan, A., Neumann, A., Vilata
            i Balaguer, I., Tatum, B., Matson, M., Blondia, C., Barz,
            C., Rogge, H., Freitag, F., Navarro, L., Bonicioli, J.,
            Papathanasiou, S., and P. Escrich, "A Case for Research
            with and on Community Networks", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
            Communication Review, Vol. 43, Issue 3, pp. 68-73,
            DOI 10.1145/2500098.2500108, July 2013.
 [Brewer]   Brewer, E., Demmer, M., Du, B., Ho, M., Kam, M.,
            Nedevschi, S., Pal, J., Patra, R., Surana, S., and K.
            Fall, "The Case for Technology in Developing Regions",
            IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 38, Issue 6, pp. 25-38,
            DOI 10.1109/MC.2005.204, 2005.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 30] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [Carlson]  Carlson, S. and C. Mitchell, "RS Fiber: Fertile Fields for
            New Rural Internet Cooperative", Institute for Local Self-
            Reliance and Next Century Cities, April 2016,
            <https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/
            rs-fiber-report-2016.pdf>.
 [Cash]     Cash, C., "CO-MO'S D.I.Y. Model for Building Broadband",
            National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA),
            November 2015, <http://remagazine.coop/co-mo-broadband/>.
 [Cerda-Alabern]
            Cerda-Alabern, L., "On the topology characterization of
            Guifi.net", Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International
            Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking
            and Communications (WiMob), pp. 389-396,
            DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379103, October 2012.
 [CoDel]    Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., and J. Iyengar,
            "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management", Work in
            Progress, draft-ietf-aqm-codel-04, June 2016.
 [Couto]    De Couto, D., Aguayo, D., Bicket, J., and R. Morris, "A
            high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless
            routing", Wireless Networks, Vol. 11, Issue 4, pp.
            419-434, DOI 10.1007/s11276-005-1766-z, July 2005.
 [Endaga]   Alleven, M., "Endaga raises $1.2M to help it bring
            cellular to remote villages", FierceWireless Tech News,
            December 2014, <http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/
            endaga-raises-12m-help-it-bring-cellular-remote-
            villages/2014-12-03>.
 [Everylayer]
            Everylayer, Inc. (formerly Volo Broadband), "Everylayer",
            2015, <http://www.everylayer.com/>.
 [Fon]      Fon, "Fon is the Global WiFi Network", 2014,
            <https://corp.fon.com/en>.
 [GAIA]     Internet Research Task Force, "Charter: Global Access to
            the Internet for All Research Group (GAIA)", 2016,
            <https://irtf.org/gaia>.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 31] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [Heer]     Heer, T., Hummen, R., Viol, N., Wirtz, H., Gotz, S., and
            K. Wehrle, "Collaborative municipal Wi-Fi networks-
            challenges and opportunities", 8th IEEE International
            Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications
            Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), pp. 588-593,
            DOI 10.1109/PERCOMW.2010.5470505, 2010.
 [Heimerl]  Heimerl, K., Shaddi, H., Ali, K., Brewer, E., and T.
            Parikh, "Local, sustainable, small-scale cellular
            networks", In ICTD 2013, Cape Town, South Africa,
            DOI 10.1145/2516604.2516616, 2013.
 [IEEE]     Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
            "IEEE Standards Association",
            <https://standards.ieee.org/>.
 [IEEE.802.11]
            IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology--
            Telecommunications and information exchange between
            systems Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific
            requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
            (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
            IEEE 802.11-2012, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2012.6178212, April
            2012, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
            download/802.11-2012.pdf>.
 [IEEE.802.11AF]
            IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology -
            Telecommunications and information exchange between
            systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific
            requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
            (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications - Amendment
            5: Television White Spaces (TVWS) Operation", IEEE
            802.11af-2013, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6744566, February
            2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
            download/802.11af-2013.pdf>.
 [IEEE.802.16]
            IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology -
            Telecommunications and information exchange between
            systems - Broadband wireless metropolitan area networks
            (MANs) - IEEE Standard for Air Interface for Broadband
            Wireless Access Systems", IEEE 802.16-2012,
            DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2012.6272299, August 2012,
            <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
            download/802.16-2012.pdf>.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 32] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [IEEE.802.22]
            IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology-- Local
            and metropolitan area networks-- Specific requirements--
            Part 22: Cognitive Wireless RAN Medium Access Control
            (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies
            and procedures for operation in the TV Bands",
            IEEE 802.22-2011, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2011.5951707, July
            2011, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
            opac?punumber=5951705>.
 [IFAD2011] International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
            "Rural Poverty Report 2011", ISBN 978-92-9072-200-7, 2011.
 [InternetStats]
            Internet World Stats, "World Internet Users and 2015
            Population Stats",
            <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm>.
 [ITU2011]  International Telecommunication Union, "World
            Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database - 2011",
            <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/
            publications/wtid.aspx>.
 [Johnson_a]
            Johnson, D. and K. Roux, "Building Rural Wireless
            Networks: Lessons Learnt and Future Directions", In
            Proceedings of the ACM workshop on Wireless networks and
            systems for developing regions, pp. 17-22,
            DOI 10.1145/1410064.1410068, 2008.
 [Johnson_b]
            Johnson, D., Pejovic, V., Belding, E., and G. van Stam,
            "Traffic Characterization and Internet Usage in Rural
            Africa", In Proceedings of the 20th International
            Conference Companion on World Wide Web, pp. 493-502,
            DOI 10.1145/1963192.1963363, 2011.
 [Lowenstedt]
            Huggler, J., "German villagers set up their own broadband
            network", June 2014,
            <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/
            germany/10871150/
            German-villagers-set-up-their-own-broadband-network.html>.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 33] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [Lysko]    Lysko, A., Masonta, M., Mofolo, M., Mfupe, L., Montsi, L.,
            Johnson, D., Mekuria, F., Ngwenya, D., Ntlatlapa, N.,
            Hart, A., Harding, C., and A. Lee, "First large TV white
            spaces trial in South Africa: A brief overview", 6th
            International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications
            and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), pp. 407-414,
            DOI 10.1109/ICUMT.2014.7002136, October 2014.
 [Mathee]   Mathee, K., Mweemba, G., Pais, A., Stam, V., and M.
            Rijken, "Bringing Internet connectivity to rural Zambia
            using a collaborative approach", International Conference
            on Information and Communication Technologies and
            Development, pp. 1-12, DOI 10.1109/ICTD.2007.4937391,
            2007.
 [McMahon]  McMahon, R., Gurstein, M., Beaton, B., Donnell, S., and T.
            Whiteducke, "Making Information Technologies Work at the
            End of the Road", Journal of Information Policy, Vol. 4,
            pp. 250-269, DOI 10.5325/jinfopoli.4.2014.0250, 2014.
 [Meraki]   Cisco Systems, "Meraki", 2016, <https://www.meraki.com/>.
 [Mexican]  Varma, S., "Ignored by big companies, Mexican village
            creates its own mobile service", August 2013,
            <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/
            Ignored-by-big-companies-Mexican-village-creates-its-own-
            mobile-service/articleshow/22094736.cms>.
 [Mitchell] Mitchell, C., "Broadband At the Speed of Light: How Three
            Communities Built Next-Generation Networks", Institute for
            Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), April 2012, <http://ilsr.org/
            wp-content/uploads/2012/04/muni-bb-speed-light.pdf>.
 [Neumann_a]
            Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "An evaluation of
            BMX6 for community wireless networks", In IEEE 8th
            International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing,
            Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp. 651-658,
            DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379145, 2012.
 [Neumann_b]
            Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "Evaluation of
            mesh routing protocols for wireless community networks",
            Computer Networks, Vol. 93, Part 2, pp. 308-323, December
            2015, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.018>.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 34] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [NewMexico]
            New Mexico Department of Information Technology,
            "Broadband Guide for Electric Utilities", CTC Technology &
            Energy, Version 1, April 2015,
            <http://www.doit.state.nm.us/broadband/reports/
            NMBBP_FiberGuide_ElectricUtilities.pdf>.
 [Norris]   Norris, P., "Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information
            Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide", Cambridge University
            Press, ISBN 0521807514, 2001.
 [Nungu]    Nungu, A., Knutsson, B., and B. Pehrson, "On Building
            Sustainable Broadband Networks in Rural Areas", Technical
            Symposium at ITU Telecom World, pp. 135-140, October 2011.
 [NYTimes]  Gall, C. and J. Glanz, "U.S. Promotes Network to Foil
            Digital Spying", The New York Times, April 2014,
            <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/
            us-promotes-network-to-foil-digital-spying.html?_r=1>.
 [OLSR]     OLSR.org, "OLSR", 2016, <http://www.olsr.org/>.
 [Openair]  OpenAirInterface, "OpenAirInterface: 5G software alliance
            for democratising wireless innovation", 2016,
            <http://www.openairinterface.org/>.
 [OpenMesh] Open Mesh, "Open Mesh", 2016, <http://www.open-mesh.com/>.
 [Osmocom]  Open Source Mobile Communications (Osmocom), "Cellular
            Infrastructure", GPRS bitrates, 2016,
            <https://osmocom.org/projects/osmopcu/wiki/GPRS_bitrates>.
 [PAWS]     Sathiaseelan, A., Crowcroft, J., Goulden, M.,
            Greiffenhagen, C., Mortier, R., Fairhurst, G., and D.
            McAuley, "Public Access WiFi Service (PAWS)", Digital
            Economy All Hands Meeting, University of Aberdeen, October
            2012.
 [PIE]      Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White, "PIE: A
            Lightweight Control Scheme To Address the Bufferbloat
            Problem", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-aqm-pie-09, August
            2016.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 35] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [Pietrosemoli]
            Pietrosemoli, E., Zennaro, M., and C. Fonda, "Low cost
            carrier independent telecommunications infrastructure",
            Global Information Infrastructure and Networking
            Symposium, pp. 1-4, DOI 10.1109/GIIS.2012.6466655,
            December 2012.
 [Rangenetworks]
            Range Networks, "Range Networks", 2016,
            <http://www.rangenetworks.com>.
 [Redhook]  Red Hook WIFI, "Red Hook WIFI, a project of the Red Hook
            Initiative", 2016, <http://redhookwifi.org/>.
 [Rey]      Rey-Moreno, C., Bebea-Gonzalez, I., Foche-Perez, I.,
            Quispe-Taca, R., Linan-Benitez, L., and J. Simo-Reigadas,
            "A telemedicine WiFi network optimized for long distances
            in the Amazonian jungle of Peru", Proceedings of the 3rd
            Extreme Conference on Communication: The Amazon
            Expedition, Article No. 9, DOI 10.1145/2414393.2414402,
            2011.
 [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
            and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
            BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
 [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
 [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
            of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
            RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
 [RFC3626]  Clausen, T., Ed. and P. Jacquet, Ed., "Optimized Link
            State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3626, October 2003,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3626>.
 [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
            Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 36] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [RFC6126]  Chroboczek, J., "The Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 6126,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6126, April 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6126>.
 [RFC6297]  Welzl, M. and D. Ros, "A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort
            Transport Protocols", RFC 6297, DOI 10.17487/RFC6297, June
            2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6297>.
 [RFC7181]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
            "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
            RFC 7181, DOI 10.17487/RFC7181, April 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7181>.
 [RFC7567]  Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
            Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
            BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.
 [Samanta]  Samanta, V., Knowles, C., Wagmister, J., and D. Estrin,
            "Metropolitan Wi-Fi Research Network at the Los Angeles
            State Historic Park", The Journal of Community
            Informatics, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2008,
            <http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/
            viewArticle/427>.
 [Sathiaseelan_a]
            Sathiaseelan, A., Rotsos, C., Sriram, C., Trossen, D.,
            Papadimitriou, P., and J. Crowcroft, "Virtual Public
            Networks", In IEEE 2013 Second European Workshop on
            Software Defined Networks (EWSDN) pp. 1-6,
            DOI 10.1109/EWSDN.2013.7, October 2013.
 [Sathiaseelan_b]
            Sathiaseelan, A. and J. Crowcroft, "LCD-Net: Lowest Cost
            Denominator Networking", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
            Communication Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 2013,
            <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2479957.2479966>.
 [Sathiaseelan_c]
            Sathiaseelan, A., Mortier, R., Goulden, M., Greiffenhagen,
            C., Radenkovic, M., Crowcroft, J., and D. McAuley, "A
            Feasibility Study of an In-the-Wild Experimental Public
            Access WiFi Network", Proceedings of the Fifth ACM
            Symposium on Computing for Development, pp. 33-42,
            DOI 10.1145/2674377.2674383, 2014.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 37] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [SDG]      United Nations, "Sustainable Development Goals",
            Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2015,
            <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300>.
 [Seither]  Seither, D., Koenig, A., and M. Hollick, "Routing
            performance of Wireless Mesh Networks: A practical
            evaluation of BATMAN advanced", IEEE 36th Conference on
            Local Computer Networks (LCN), pp. 897-904,
            DOI 10.1109/LCN.2011.6115569, October 2011.
 [Shi]      Shi, J., Gui, L., Koutsonikolas, D., Qiao, C., and G.
            Challen, "A Little Sharing Goes a Long Way: The Case for
            Reciprocal Wifi Sharing", HotWireless '15 Proceedings of
            the 2nd International Workshop on Hot Topics in Wireless,
            DOI 10.1145/2799650.2799652, September 2015.
 [Simo_a]   Simo-Reigadas, J., Morgado, E., Municio, E., Prieto-Egido,
            I., and A. Martinez-Fernandez, "Assessing IEEE 802.11 and
            IEEE 802.16 as backhaul technologies for rural 3G
            femtocells in rural areas of developing countries",
            Proceedings of EUCNC, 2014.
 [Simo_b]   Simo-Reigadas, J., Martinez-Fernandez, A., Ramos-Lopez,
            J., and J. Seoane-Pascual, "Modeling and Optimizing IEEE
            802.11 DCF for Long-Distance Links", IEEE Transactions on
            Mobile Computing, Vol. 9, Issue 6, pp. 881-896,
            DOI 10.1109/TMC.2010.27, 2010.
 [Simo_c]   Simo-Reigadas, J., Martinez-Fernandez, A., Osuna, P.,
            Lafuente, S., and J. Seoane-Pascual, "The Design of a
            Wireless Solar-Powered Router for Rural Environments
            Isolated from Health Facilities", IEEE Wireless
            Communications, Vol. 15, Issue 3, pp. 24-30,
            DOI 0.1109/MWC.2008.4547519, June 2008.
 [Simo_d]   Simo-Reigadas, J., Municio, E., Morgado, E., Castro, E.,
            Martinez-Fernandez, A., Solorzano, L., and I. Prieto-
            Egido, "Sharing low-cost wireless infrastructures with
            telecommunications operators to bring 3G services to rural
            communities", Computer Networks, Vol. 93, Issue P2, pp.
            245-259, December 2015,
            <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.006>.
 [Spectrum] Laursen, L., "Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities
            Build Their Own 4G Networks", November 2015,
            <http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/
            softwaredefined-radio-will-let-communities-build-their-
            own-4g-networks>.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 38] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [Sprague]  Sprague, K., Grijpink, F., Manyika, J., Moodley, L.,
            Chappuis, B., Pattabiraman, K., and J. Bughin, "Offline
            and falling behind: Barriers to Internet adoption",
            McKinsey and Company, August 2014.
 [Tech]     Kazansky, B., "In Red Hook, Mesh Network Connects Sandy
            Survivors Still Without Power", November 2012,
            <http://techpresident.com/news/23127/red-hook-mesh-
            network-connects-sandy-survivors-still-without-power>.
 [TidePools]
            Baldwin, J., "TidePools: Social WiFi", Parsons, the New
            School for Design, Doctoral dissertation, Master thesis,
            2011, <http://www.scribd.com/doc/94601219/
            TidePools-Social-WiFi-Thesis>.
 [UN]       United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), "Composition of
            macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical
            sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings",
            October 2013, <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/
            m49regin.htm#ftnc>.
 [UNStats]  United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), "Urban and
            total population by sex: 1996-2005", Table 6 - Demographic
            Yearbook 2005,
            <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/
            dyb2005/notestab06.pdf>.
 [Vega_a]   Vega, D., Cerda-Alabern, L., Navarro, L., and R. Meseguer,
            "Topology patterns of a community network: Guifi.net",
            IEEE 8th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile
            Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp.
            612-619, DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379139, October 2012.
 [Vega_b]   Vega, D., Baig, R., Cerda-Alabern, L., Medina, E.,
            Meseguer, R., and L. Navarro, "A technological overview of
            the guifi.net community network", Computer Networks, Vol.
            93, Issue P2, pp. 260-278, December 2015,
            <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.023>.
 [Village]  Heimerl, K. and E. Brewer, "The Village Base Station",
            Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Networked Systems
            for Developing Regions, Article No. 14,
            DOI 10.1145/1836001.1836015, 2010.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 39] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 [WiLD]     Patra, R., Nedevschi, S., Surana, S., Sheth, A.,
            Subramanian, L., and E. Brewer, "WiLDNet: Design and
            Implementation of High Performance WiFi Based Long
            Distance Networks", NSDI, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1, April
            2007.
 [WNDW]     WNDW, "Wireless Networking in the Developing World, 3rd
            Edition", The WNDW Project, 2013, <http://wndw.net>.
 [WorldBank2016]
            World Bank, "World Development Report 2016: Digital
            Dividends", Washington, DC: The World Bank, ISBN
            978-1-4648-0672-8, DOI 10.1596/978-1-4648-0671-1, 2016,
            <http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentS
            erver/WDSP/IB/2016/01/13/090224b08405ea05/2_0/Rendered/
            PDF/World0developm0000digital0dividends.pdf>.
 [WSIS]     International Telecommunications Union, "Declaration of
            Principles. Building the Information Society: A global
            challenge in the new millennium", WSIS-03 / GENEVA / DOC /
            4-E, December 2003, <http://www.itu.int/wsis>.
 [YateBTS]  YateBTS, "YateBTS", 2016, <http://yatebts.com/>.

Acknowledgements

 This work has been partially funded by the CONFINE European
 Commission project (FP7 - 288535).  Arjuna Sathiaseelan and Andres
 Arcia Moret were funded by the EU H2020 RIFE project (Grant Agreement
 no: 644663).  Jose Saldana was funded by the EU H2020 Wi-5 project
 (Grant Agreement no: 644262).
 The editor and the authors of this document wish to thank the
 following individuals who have participated in the drafting, review,
 and discussion of this memo: Panayotis Antoniadis, Paul M. Aoki,
 Roger Baig, Jaume Barcelo, Steven G. Huter, Aldebaro Klautau, Rohan
 Mahy, Vesna Manojlovic, Mitar Milutinovic, Henning Schulzrinne, Rute
 Sofia, and Dirk Trossen.
 A special thanks to the GAIA Working Group chairs Mat Ford and Arjuna
 Sathiaseelan for their support and guidance.

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 40] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

Contributors

 Leandro Navarro
 U. Politecnica Catalunya
 Jordi Girona, 1-3, D6
 Barcelona  08034
 Spain
 Phone: +34 93 401 6807
 Email: leandro@ac.upc.edu
 Carlos Rey-Moreno
 University of the Western Cape
 Robert Sobukwe road
 Bellville  7535
 South Africa
 Phone: +27 (0)21 959 2562
 Email: crey-moreno@uwc.ac.za
 Ioannis Komnios
 Democritus University of Thrace
 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
 Kimmeria University Campus
 Xanthi 67100
 Greece
 Phone: +306945406585
 Email: ikomnios@ee.duth.gr
 Steve Song
 Network Startup Resource Center
 Lunenburg, Nova Scotia
 Canada
 Phone: +1 902 529 0046
 Email: stevesong@nsrc.org
 David Lloyd Johnson
 Meraka, CSIR
 15 Lower Hope St
 Rosebank 7700
 South Africa
 Phone: +27 (0)21 658 2740
 Email: djohnson@csir.co.za

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 41] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 Javier Simo-Reigadas
 Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieria de Telecomunicacion
 Campus de Fuenlabrada
 Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
 Madrid
 Spain
 Phone: +34 91 488 8428
 Fax:   +34 91 488 7500
 Email: javier.simo@urjc.es

Authors' Addresses

 Jose Saldana (editor)
 University of Zaragoza
 Dpt. IEC Ada Byron Building
 Zaragoza  50018
 Spain
 Phone: +34 976 762 698
 Email: jsaldana@unizar.es
 Andres Arcia-Moret
 University of Cambridge
 15 JJ Thomson Avenue
 Cambridge  FE04
 United Kingdom
 Phone: +44 (0) 1223 763610
 Email: andres.arcia@cl.cam.ac.uk
 Bart Braem
 iMinds
 Gaston Crommenlaan 8 (bus 102)
 Gent  9050
 Belgium
 Phone: +32 3 265 38 64
 Email: bart.braem@iminds.be

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 42] RFC 7962 Alternative Network Deployments August 2016

 Ermanno Pietrosemoli
 The Abdus Salam ICTP
 Via Beirut 7
 Trieste  34151
 Italy
 Phone: +39 040 2240 471
 Email: ermanno@ictp.it
 Arjuna Sathiaseelan
 University of Cambridge
 15 JJ Thomson Avenue
 Cambridge  CB30FD
 United Kingdom
 Phone: +44 (0)1223 763781
 Email: arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk
 Marco Zennaro
 The Abdus Salam ICTP
 Strada Costiera 11
 Trieste  34100
 Italy
 Phone: +39 040 2240 406
 Email: mzennaro@ictp.it

Saldana, et al. Informational [Page 43]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7962.txt · Last modified: 2016/08/30 00:35 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki