One document matched: draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC1918 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1918.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2328 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2328.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3135 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3135.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3626 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3626.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4271 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4271.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5690 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5690.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6297 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6297.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02" ipr="trust200902">
<!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->
<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
<front>
<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the
full title is longer than 39 characters -->
<title abbrev="Alternative Network Deployments">Alternative Network Deployments. Taxonomy and characterization</title>
<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
<!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->
<author fullname="Jose Saldana" initials="J." surname="Saldana" role="editor">
<organization>University of Zaragoza</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Dpt. IEC Ada Byron Building</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Zaragoza</city>
<region></region>
<code>50018</code>
<country>Spain</country>
</postal>
<phone>+34 976 762 698</phone>
<email>jsaldana@unizar.es</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Andres Arcia-Moret" initials="A." surname="Arcia-Moret">
<organization>Universidad de Los Andes</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Facultad de Ingeniería. Sector La Hechicera</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Merida</city>
<region></region>
<code>5101</code>
<country>Venezuela</country>
</postal>
<phone>+58 274 2402811</phone>
<email>andres.arcia@ula.ve</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Bart Braem" initials="B." surname="Braem">
<organization>iMinds</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Gaston Crommenlaan 8 (bus 102)</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Gent</city>
<region></region>
<code>9050</code>
<country>Belgium</country>
</postal>
<phone>+32 3 265 38 64</phone>
<email>bart.braem@iminds.be</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Leandro Navarro" initials="L." surname="Navarro">
<organization>U. Politecnica Catalunya</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Jordi Girona, 1-3, D6</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Barcelona</city>
<region></region>
<code>08034</code>
<country>Spain</country>
</postal>
<phone>+34 934016807</phone>
<email>leandro@ac.upc.edu</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Ermanno Pietrosemoli" initials="E." surname="Pietrosemoli">
<organization>ICTP</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Via Beirut 7</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Trieste</city>
<region></region>
<code>34151</code>
<country>Italy</country>
</postal>
<phone>+39 040 2240 471</phone>
<email>ermanno@ictp.it</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Carlos Rey-Moreno" initials="C." surname="Rey-Moreno">
<organization>University of the Western Cape</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Robert Sobukwe road</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Bellville</city>
<region></region>
<code>7535</code>
<country>South Africa</country>
</postal>
<phone>0027219592562</phone>
<email>crey-moreno@uwc.ac.za</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Arjuna Sathiaseelan" initials="A." surname="Sathiaseelan">
<organization>University of Cambridge</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>15 JJ Thomson Avenue</street>
<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
<city>Cambridge</city>
<region></region>
<code>CB30FD</code>
<country>United Kingdom</country>
</postal>
<phone>+44 (0)1223 763781</phone>
<email>arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk</email>
<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Marco Zennaro" initials="M." surname="Zennaro">
<organization>Abdus Salam ICTP</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Strada Costiera 11</street>
<city>Trieste</city>
<region></region>
<code>34100</code>
<country>Italy</country>
</postal>
<phone>+39 040 2240 406</phone>
<email>mzennaro@ictp.it</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2015" />
<!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill
in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill
in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is
necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the
purpose of calculating the expiry date). With drafts it is normally sufficient to
specify just the year. -->
<!-- Meta-data Declarations -->
<workgroup>Global Access to the Internet for All</workgroup>
<!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
IETF is fine for individual submissions.
If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->
<keyword>alternative network deployments</keyword>
<keyword>community networks</keyword>
<keyword>user-centric networks</keyword>
<!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
keywords will be used for the search engine. -->
<abstract>
<t>This document presents a taxonomy of "Alternative Network
deployments", and a set of definitions and shared characteristics.
This term includes a set of network access models emerged in the last
decade with the aim of bringing Internet connectivity to people,
using topological, architectural and business models different
from the so-called "traditional" ones, where a company deploys the
network infrastructure for connecting the users, who pay for
it.</t>
<t>Several initiatives throughout the world have built large scale
networks that are alternative to the traditional network operator
deployments using predominately wireless technologies (including
long distance) due to the reduced cost of using the unlicensed spectrum.
Wired technologies such as Fiber are also used in some of these alternate
networks. There are several types of such alternate network: networks
such as community networks are self-organized and
decentralized networks wholly owned by the community; networks owned
by individuals who act 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
and finally there are networks that provide connectivity by sharing
wireless resources of the users.</t>
<t>The emergence of these networks can be motivated by
different causes such as the reluctance, or the impossibility, of
network operators to provide wired and cellular infrastructures to
rural/remote areas. In these cases, the networks have self
sustainable business models that provide more localised communication
services as well as Internet backhaul support through peering
agreements with traditional network operators. Some other times,
networks are built as a complement and an alternative to commercial
Internet access provided by "traditional" network operators.</t>
<t>The present classification considers different existing network models such as Community
Networks, open wireless services, user-extensible services, traditional local Internet
Service Providers (ISPs), new global ISPs, etc. Different criteria are used in order
to build a classification as e.g., the ownership of the equipment, the way the network
is organized, the participatory model, the extensibility, if they are driven by a community, a
company or a local (public or private) stakeholder, etc.</t>
<t>According to the developed taxonomy, a characterization of each kind of network
is presented, in terms of specific network characteristics related to architecture, organization,
etc.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>Several initiatives throughout the world have built large scale
networks that are alternative to the traditional network operator deployments
using predominately wireless technologies (including long distance) due
to the reduced cost of using the unlicensed spectrum. Wired technologies
such as Fiber are also used in some of these alternate networks. There are several
types of such alternate network: networks such as community networks are self-organized
and decentralized networks wholly owned by the community; networks owned by individuals
who act 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 and finally there are networks that provide
connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users.</t>
<t>The emergence of these networks can be motivated by different causes, as
the reluctance, or the impossibility, of network operators to provide wired
and cellular infrastructures to rural/remote areas <xref target="Pietrosemoli"></xref>.
In these cases, the networks
have self sustainable business models that provide more localised communication
services as well as Internet backhaul support
through peering agreements with traditional network operators. Some other times, they are
built as a complement and an alternative to commercial Internet access provided by
"traditional" network operators.</t>
<t>One of the aims of the Global Access to the Internet for All (GAIA) IRTF initiative is
"to document and share deployment experiences and research results to the wider community
through scholarly publications, white papers, Informational and Experimental RFCs, etc."
In line with this objective, this document is intended to propose a classification of these
"Alternative Network deployments". This term includes a set of network access models emerged
in the last decade with the aim of bringing Internet connectivity to people, following
topological, architectural and business models different from the so-called "traditional" ones,
where a company deploys the infrastructure connecting the users, who pay for it. The
document is intended to be largely descriptive providing
a broad overview of initiatives, technologies and approaches employed in these networks.
Research references describing each kind of network are also provided.</t>
<section title="Requirements Language">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Classification">
<t>This section classifies Alternative Networks (ANs) according to their intended usage. Each of
them has different incentive structures, maybe common technological challenges, but most
importantly interesting usage challenges which feeds into the incentives as well as
the technological challenges.</t>
<!-- Ideas from Roger -->
<t>This classification is agnostic from the technical point of view. Technology in this
case must be taken as implementation. Moreover, many of these networks are implemented
in a way that several technologies (Ad-Hoc Wi-Fi, Infrastructure Wi-Fi, Optical Fiber,
IPv4, IPv6, RFC1918, OLSR, BMX6, etc.) coexist.</t>
<section title="Community Networks">
<!-- Written by Bart -->
<t>Community Networks are large-scale, distributed, self-managed networks sharing these
characteristics:</t>
<t>- They are built and organized in a decentralized and open manner.</t>
<t>- They start and grow organically, they are open to participation from everyone,
sometimes agreeing to an open peering agreement. Community members directly contribute
active network infrastructure (not just passive infrastructure).</t>
<t>- Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership of the
network itself is decentralized and open. Community members have an obvious and direct
form of organizational control over the overall operation of the network in their
community (not just their own participation in the network).</t>
<t>- The network CAN serve as a backhaul for providing a whole range of services and
applications, from completely free to even commercial services.</t>
<t>Hardware and software used in Community Networks CAN be very diverse, even inside
one network. A Community Network CAN have both wired and wireless links. The network
CAN be managed by multiple routing protocols or network topology management systems.</t>
<t>These networks grow organically, since they are formed by the aggregation of nodes
belonging to different users. A minimum governance infrastructure is required in order
to coordinate IP addressing, routing, etc. A clear example of this kind of Community
Network is described in <xref target="Braem"></xref>. These networks are effective in
enhancing and extending digital Internet rights following a participatory model.</t>
<!-- Ideas from Rohan Mahy -->
<t>The fact of the 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 network 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 extent of the network and the
new extent of the network.</t>
<!-- Written by Roger -->
<t>In Community Networks, the profit can only be made by services and not by the
infrastructure itself, because the infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (traditional
Internet Service Providers, ISPs, base their business on the control of the infrastructure).
In Community Networks, everybody keeps the ownership of what he/she has contributed.</t>
<!-- Ideas from Roger -->
<t>Community Networks MAY also be called "Free Networks" or even "Network Commons".
<xref target="FNF"></xref>. The majority of Community Networks accomplishes the
definition of Free Network, included in the next subsection.</t>
<section title="Free Networks">
<!-- Written by Roger -->
<t>A definition of Free Network (which MAY be the same as Community Network) is proposed by the
Free Network Foundation (see http://thefnf.org) as:</t>
<t>"A free network equitably grants the following freedoms to all:</t>
<t>Freedom 0 - The freedom to communicate for any purpose, without discrimination, interference,
or interception.</t>
<t>Freedom 1 - The freedom to grow, improve, communicate across, and connect to the whole
network.</t>
<t>Freedom 2- The freedom to study, use, remix, and share any network communication mechanisms,
in their most reusable forms."</t>
<t>The principles of Free, Open and Neutral Networks have also been summarized
(see http://guifi.net/en/FONCC) this way:</t>
<t>- 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.</t>
<t>- You have the right to understand the network, to know its components, and to spread
knowledge of its mechanisms and principles.</t>
<t>- You have the right to offer services and content to the network on your own terms.</t>
<t>- You have the right to join the network, and the responsibility to extend this set of
rights to anyone according to these same terms.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs">
<!-- Written by Steve Song -->
<t>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 incumbent telcos or ISPs. WISPs
often use wireless point-to-point or point-to-multipoint in the
unlicensed frequencies but licensed frequency use is common too
especially in regions where unlicensed spectrum is either perceived as
crowded or where unlicensed spectrum may have regulatory barriers
impeding its use.</t>
<t>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 <xref target="Airjaldi"></xref> in India that have expanded from
local service into multiple locations.</t>
<t>Since 2006, the deployment of cloud-managed WISPs has been possible
with companies like Meraki and later OpenMesh and others. Until
recently, however, most of these services have been aimed at
industrialised markets. Everylayer <xref target="Everylayer"></xref>,
launched in 2014, is the first cloud-managed WISP service aimed at
emerging markets.</t>
</section>
<section title="Shared infrastructure model ">
<t>These networks are owned by individuals but leased out to network operators who use
them as a low cost medium to reach the underserved population.</t>
</section>
<section title="Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party stakeholders">
<!-- Paragraph written by Rute Sofia -->
<t>These networks can be defined as a set of nodes whose owners share common interests
(e.g. sharing connectivity; resources; peripherals) regardless of their physical location.
The node location exhibits a space and time correlation which is the basis to establish a
robust connectivity model over time.</t>
<t>These networks 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 <xref target="PAWS"></xref> and
<xref target="Sathiaseelan_c"></xref>. Other example is constituted
by the networks created and managed by City Councils (e.g., <xref target="Heer"></xref>).</t>
<t>In the same way, some companies <xref target="Fon"></xref> develop and
sell Wi-Fi routers with a dual access: a Wi-Fi network for the user, and a shared one.
A user community is created, and people can join the network in different ways:
they can buy a router, so they share their connection and in
turn they get access to all the routers associated to the community.
Some users can even get some revenue every time another user
connects to their Wi-Fi spot. Other users can just buy some passes
in order to use the network. Some telecommunications operators can collaborate with the community,
including in their routers the possibility of creating these two networks.</t>
<t>A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is created for public traffic, so it is completely secure and separated
from the owner’s connection. The network capacity shared may employ a low priority, a less-than-best-effort
or scavenger approach, so as not to harm the traffic of the owner of the connection
<xref target="Sathiaseelan_a"></xref>.</t>
<t>The elements involved in a crowd-shared network are summarised below:</t>
<t>- Interest: a parameter capable of providing a measure (cost) of the attractiveness
of a node towards a specific location, in a specific instance in time.</t>
<t>- Resources: A physical or virtual element of a global system. For instance, bandwidth;
energy; data; devices.</t>
<t>- The owner: End users who sign up for the service and share their network capacity. As a counterpart,
they can access another owners' home access for free. The owner can be an end user or an entity (e.g.
operator; virtual operator; municipality) that is to be made responsible for any actions
concerning his/her device.</t>
<t>- 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.</t>
<t>- The Virtual Network Operator (VNO): An entity that acts in some aspects as a network coordinator.
It may provide services such as initial authentication or registering, and eventually,
trust relationship storage. A VNO is not an ISP given that it does not provide Internet
access (e.g. infrastructure; naming). A VNO is neither an Application Service Provider
(ASP) since it does not provide user services. Virtual Operators MAY also be stakeholders
with socio-environmental objectives. They CAN be a local government, grass root user
communities, charities, or even content operators, smart grid operators, etc. They are
the ones who actually run the service.</t>
<t>- Network operators, who have a financial incentive to lease out the unused capacity
<xref target="Sathiaseelan_b"></xref> at lower cost to the VNOs.</t>
<t>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, the network operators are paid
by the VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role.</t>
</section>
<section title="Testbeds for research purposes">
<t>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
<xref target="Samanta"></xref>, <xref target="Bernardi"></xref>.</t>
<!-- To be improved by Javier Simo -->
</section>
</section>
<section title="Scenarios where Alternative Networks are deployed">
<t>Alternative Network deployments are present in every part of the world. Even in some
high-income countries, these networks have been built as an alternative to commercial ones
managed by traditional network operators. This section discusses the scenarios where
Alternative Networks have been deployed.</t>
<section title="Digital Divide and Alternative Networks">
<!-- Written by Carlos -->
<t>There is no definition for what a developing country represents that has been
recognized internationally, but the term is generally used to describe a nation with
a low level of material well-being. In this sense, one of the most commonly used
classification is the one by the World Bank, who ranks countries according to their
Gross National Income (GNI) per Capita: low income, middle income, and high income,
being those falling within the low and middle income groups considered developing
economies. Developing countries have also been defined as those which are in transition
from traditional lifestyles towards the modern lifestyle which began in the Industrial
Revolution. Additionally, the Human Development Index, which considers not only the
GNI but also life expectancy and education, has been proposed by the United Nations
to rank countries according to their well-being and not solely based on
economic terms. These classifications are used to give strong signals to the
international community about the need of special concessions in support of these
countries, implying a correlation between development and increased well-being.</t>
<t>However, at the beginning of the 90's the debates about how to quantify development
in a country were shaken by the appearance of Internet and mobile phones, which many
authors consider the beginning of the Information Society. With the beginning of this
Digital Revolution, defining development based on Industrial Society concepts started
to be challenged, and links between digital development and its impact on human
development started to flourish. The following dimensions are considered to be
meaningful when measuring the digital development state of a country: infrastructures
(availability and affordability); ICT (Information and Communications Technology) sector
(human capital and technological
industry); digital literacy; legal and regulatory framework; and content and services.
The lack or less extent of digital development in one or more of these dimensions is
what has been referred as Digital Divide. This divide is a new vector of inequality
which - as it happened during the Industrial Revolution - generates a lot of
progress at the expense of creating a lot economic poverty and exclusion. The
Digital Divide is considered to be a consequence of other socio-economic divides,
while, at the same time, a reason for their rise.</t>
<t>In this context, the so-called “developing countries”, in order not to be left behind of
this incipient digital revolution, motivated the World Summit of the Information
Society which aimed at achieving “a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented
Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information
and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full
potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of
life” <xref target="WSIS"></xref>, and called upon “governments, private
sector, civil society and international organisations” to actively engage to
accomplish it <xref target="WSIS"></xref>.</t>
<t>Most efforts from governments and international organizations focused initially on
improving and extending the existing infrastructure in order not to leave their population
behind. As an example, one of the goals of the Digital Agenda for Europe
<xref target="DAE"></xref> is "to increase
regular internet usage from 60% to 75% by 2015, and from 41% to 60% among
disadvantaged people."</t>
<t>Universal Access and Service plans have taken different forms in different
countries over the years, with very uneven success rates, but in most cases inadequate
to the scale of the problem. Given its incapacity to solve the problem, some
governments included Universal Service and Access obligations to mobile network
operators when liberalizing the telecommunications market. In combination with the
overwhelming and unexpected uptake of mobile phones by poor people, this has
mitigated the low access indicators existing in many developing countries at
the beginning of the 90s <xref target="Rendon"></xref>.</t>
<t>Although the contribution made by mobile network operators in
decreasing the access gap is undeniable, their model presents some constraints that limit the
development outcomes that increased connectivity promises to bring. Prices, tailored
for the more affluent part of the population, remain unaffordable to many, who invest
large percentages of their disposable income in communications. Additionally, the cost
of prepaid packages, the only option available for the informal economies existing
throughout developing countries, is high compared with the rate longer-term subscribers
pay.</t>
<t>The consolidation of many Alternative Networks (e.g. Community Networks)
in high income countries sets a precedent for civil society members from the
so-called developing countries to become
more active in the search for alternatives to provide themselves with affordable
access. Furthermore, Alternative Networks could contribute to other dimensions of the
digital development like increased human capital and the creation of contents and
services targeting the locality of each network.</t>
</section>
<section title="Urban vs. rural areas">
<!-- Written by Carlos -->
<t>The Digital Divide presented in the previous section is not only present between
countries, but within them too. This is specially the case for rural inhabitants,
which represents approximately 55% of the world's population, from which 78%
inhabit in developing countries. Although it is impossible to generalize among
them, there exist some common features that have determined the availability of
ICT infrastructure in these regions. The disposable income of their dwellers is
lower than those inhabiting urban areas, with many surviving on a subsistence
economy. Many of them are located in geographies difficult to access and exposed
to extreme weather conditions. This has resulted in the almost complete lack
of electrical infrastructure. This context, together with their low population
density, discourages telecommunications operators to provide similar services
to those provided to urban dwellers, since they do not deem them profitable.</t>
<t>The cost of the wireless infrastructure required to set up a network,
including powering it via solar energy, is within the range of availability
if not of individuals at least of entire communities. The social capital existing
in these areas can allow for Alternative Network set-ups where a reduced number of
nodes may cover communities whose dwellers share the cost of the infrastructure and
the gateway and access it via inexpensive wireless devices. Some examples are presented
in <xref target="Pietrosemoli"></xref> and <xref target="Bernardi"></xref>.</t>
<t>In this case, the lack of awareness and confidence of rural communities to embark
themselves in such tasks can become major barriers to their deployment. Scarce technical
skills in these regions have been also pointed as a challenge for their success,
but the proliferation of urban Community Networks, where scarcity of spectrum,
scale, and heterogeneity of devices pose tremendous challenges to their stability
and the services they aim to provide, has fuelled the creation of
robust low-cost low-consumption low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices which
make much easier the deployment and maintenance of these alternative
infrastructures in rural areas.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Technologies employed">
<section title="Wired">
<t>In many (developed or developing) countries it may happen that national
service providers may decline to provide connectivity to tiny and isolated villages.
So in some cases the villagers have created their own optical fiber networks. It is the
case of Lowenstedt in Germany <xref target="Lowenstedt"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Wireless">
<!--[Jose] Marco can contribute here.-->
<t>Different wireless technologies <xref target="WNDW"></xref> can be employed in
Alternative Network deployments. Below we summarise topics to be considered in such
deployments:</t>
<section title="Antennas">
<!-- Written by Ermanno -->
<t>Three kinds of antennas are suitable to be used in these
networks: omnidirectional, directional and high gain antennas.</t>
<t>For local access, omnidirectional antennas are the most useful, since they provide the
same coverage in all directions of the plane in which they are located. Above and below
this plane, the received signal will diminish, so the maximum benefits are obtained when
the client is at approximately the same height as the Access Point.</t>
<t>When using an omnidirectional antenna outdoors to provide connectivity to a large area,
people often select high gain antennas located at the highest structure available to extend
the coverage. In many cases this is counterproductive, since a high gain omnidirectional
antenna will have a very narrow beamwidth in the vertical plane, meaning that clients that
are below the plane of the antenna will receive a very weak signal (and by the reciprocity
property of all antennas, the antenna will also receive a feeble signal from the client).
A moderate gain omnidirectional of about 8 to 10 dBi is normally preferable. Higher gain
omnidirectional antennas are only advisable when the farthest way client is roughly in the same
plane.</t>
<t>For indoor clients, omnidirectional antennas are generally fine, because the numerous reflections normally
found in indoor environments negate the advantage of using directional antennas.</t>
<t>For outdoor clients, directional antennas can be quite useful to extend coverage to an
Access Point fitted with an omnidirectional one.</t>
<t>When building point-to-point links, the highest gain antennas are the best choice, since
their narrow beamwidth mitigates interference from other users and can provide the longest
links <xref target="Flickenger"></xref>, <xref target="Zennaro"></xref>.</t>
<t>24 to 34 dBi antennas are commercially available at both the unlicensed 2.4 GHz and
5 GHz bands, and even higher gain antennas can be found in the newer unlicensed bands at
17 GHz and 24 GHz.</t>
<t>Despite the fact that the free space loss is directly proportional to the square of the
frequency, it is normally advisable to use higher frequencies for point-to-point links when
there is a clear line of sight, because it is normally easier to get higher gain antennas
at 5 GHz. Deploying high gain antennas at both ends will more than compensate for the
additional free space loss. Furthermore, higher frequencies can make do with lower
altitude antenna placement since the Fresnel ellipsoid (the volume around the optical line
occuppied by radio waves, which should be free from obstacles), is inversely proportional
to the square root of the frequency.</t>
<t>On the contrary, lower frequencies offer advantages when the line of sight is blocked
because they can leverage diffraction to reach the intended receiver. </t>
<t>It is common to find dual radio Access Points, at two different frequency bands. One
way of benefiting from this arrangement is to attach a directional antenna to the high
frequency radio for connection to the backbone and an omnidirectional one to the lower frequency to
provide local access.</t>
<t>In the case of mesh networking, where the antenna should connect to several
other nodes, it is better to use omnidirectional antennas.</t>
<t>The same type of polarisation must be used at both ends of any
radio link. For point-to-point links, some vendors use two radios operating at the same
frequency but with orthogonal polarisations, thus doubling the achievable throughput,
and also offering added protection to multipath and other transmission impairments.</t>
</section>
<section title="Link length">
<!-- Written by Ermanno -->
<section title="Line-of-Sight">
<t>For short distance transmission, there is no strict requirement of line of sight
between the transmitter and the receiver, and multipath can guarantee communication
despite the existence of obstacles in the direct path.</t>
<t>For longer distances, the first requirement is the existence of an unobstructed
line of sight between the transmitter and the receiver. For very long path the
earth curvature is an obstacle that must be cleared, but the trajectory of the radio
beam is not strictly a straight line due to the bending of the rays as a consequence
of non-uniformities of the atmosphere. Most of the time this bending will mean that
the radio horizon extends further than the optical horizon.</t>
<t>Another factor to be considered is that the Fresnel zone (the volume around the
optical line) must be unencumbered from obstacles for the maximum signal to
be captured at the receiver. The size of the Fresnel ellipsoid grows with the distance
between the end points and with the wavelength of the signal, which in turn is
inversely proportional to the frequency.</t>
<t>For optimum signal reception the end points must be high enough to clear any
obstacle in the path and leave extra "elbow room" for the Fresnel zone. This can
be achieved by using suitable masts at either end, or by taking advantage of
existing structures or hills.</t>
</section>
<section title="Transmitted and Received Power">
<t>Once a clear radio-electric line of sight (including the Fresnel zone clearance)
is obtained, one must ascertain that the received power is well above the sensitivity
of the receiver, by what is known as the "link margin". The greater the link margin, the
more reliable the link. For mission critical applications 20 dB margin is suggested,
but for non critical ones 10 dB might suffice.</t>
<t>The sensitivity of the receiver decreases with the transmission
speed, so more power is needed at greater transmission speeds.</t>
<t>The received power is determined by the transmitted power, the gain of the
transmitting and receiving antennas and the propagation loss.</t>
<t>The propagation loss is the sum of the free space loss (proportional to the square
of the the frequency and the square of the distance), plus additional factors like
attenuation in the atmosphere by gases or meteorological effects (which are strongly
frequency dependent), multipath and diffraction losses.</t>
<t>Multipath is more pronounced in trajectories over water. If they cannot be avoided
special countermeasures should be taken.</t>
<t>In order to achieve a given link margin (also called "fade margin"), one can:</t>
<t>a) Increase the output power.The maximum transmitted power is specified by each
country's regulation, and for unlicensed frequencies is much lower than for licensed
frequencies.</t>
<t>b) Increase the antenna gain. There is no limit in the gain of the receiving antenna,
but high gain antennas are bulkier, present more wind resistance and require sturdy mounts
to comply with tighter alignment requirements. The transmitter antenna gain is also
regulated and can be different for point-to-point as for point-to-multipoint links. Many
countries impose a limit in the combination of transmitted power and antenna gain,
EIRP (Equivalent Isotropically Irradiated Power) which can be different for point-to-
point or point-to-multipoint links.</t>
<t>c) Reduce the propagation loss, by using a more favorable frequency or a shorter path.</t>
<t>d) Use a more sensitive receiver. Receiver sensitivity can be improved by using better
circuits, but it is ultimately limited by the thermal noise, which is proportional to
temperature and bandwidth. One can increase the sensitivity by using a smaller receiving
bandwidth, or by settling to lower throughput even in the same receiver bandwidth. This step
is often done automatically in many protocols, in which the transmission speed can be reduced
from 150 Mbit/s to 6 Mbit/s if the receiver power is not enough to sustain the maximum
throughput.</t>
</section>
<section title="Medium Access Protocol">
<t>A completely different limiting factor is related to the medium access protocol. Wi-Fi
was designed for short distance, and the transmitter expects the reception of an acknowledgment
for each transmitted packet in a certain amount of time; if the waiting time is exceeded, the
packet is retransmitted. This will significantly reduce the throughput at long distance, so
for long distance applications it is better to use a different medium access technique, in which
the receiver does not wait for an acknowledgement of the transited packet. This strategy of
TDMA (Time Domain Multiple Access) has been adopted by many equipment vendors who offer
proprietary protocols alongside the standard Wi-Fi in order to increase the throughput at
longer distances. Low cost equipment using TDMA can offer high throughput at distances over
100 kilometers.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Layer 2">
<section title="802.11 (Wi-Fi)">
<!-- Written by Marco -->
<t>Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who design, deploy and
manage wireless networks. The standards used in the vast majority of Community Networks come
from the IEEE Standard Association's IEEE 802 Working Group.</t>
<t>The standard we are most interested in is 802.11 a/b/g/n,
<xref target="IEEE.802-11A.1999"></xref>, <xref target="IEEE.802-11B.1999"></xref>,
<xref target="IEEE.802-11G.2003"></xref>, <xref target="IEEE.802-11N.2009"></xref> as it
defines the protocol for Wireless LAN. Different 802.11 amendments have been released, as
shown in the table below, also including their frequencies and approximate ranges.</t>
<figure align="left">
<artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
|802.11| Release | Freq |BWdth | Data Rate per | Approx range (m) |
|prot | date | (GHz)|(MHz) |stream (Mbit/s) | indoor | outdoor |
+------+---------+------+------+----------------+--------+----------+
| a |Sep 1999 | 5 | 20 | 6,9,12, 18, 24,| 35 | 120 |
| | | | | 36, 48, 54 | | |
| b |Sep 1999 | 2.4 | 20 | 1, 2, 5.5, 11 | 35 | 140 |
| g |Jun 2003 | 2.4 | 20 | 6,9,12, 18, 24,| 38 | 140 |
| | | | | 36, 48, 54 | | |
| n |Oct 2009 | 2.4/5| 20 | 7.2, 14.4, 21.7| 70 | 250 |
| | | | | 28.9, 43.3, | | |
| | | | | 57.8, 65, 72.2 | | |
| n |Oct 2009 | 2.4/5| 40 | 15, 30, 45, 60,| 70 | 250 |
| | | | | 90, 120, | | |
| | | | | 135, 150 | | |
| ac |Nov 2011 | 5 | 20 | Up to 87.6 | | |
| ac |Nov 2011 | 5 | 40 | Up to 200 | | |
| ac |Nov 2011 | 5 | 80 | Up to 433.3 | | |
| ac |Nov 2011 | 5 | 160 | Up to 866.7 | | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t>In 2012 IEEE issued the 802.11-2012 Standard that consolidates all the previous amendments.
The document is freely downloadable from <xref target="IEEE">IEEE Standards</xref>.</t>
<section title="Deployment planning for 802.11 wireless networks">
<!-- Written by Marco -->
<t>Before packets can be forwarded and routed to the Internet, layers one (the physical) and two
(the data link) need to be connected. Without link local connectivity, network nodes cannot
talk to each other and route packets.</t>
<t>To provide physical connectivity, wireless network devices MUST operate in the same part of
the radio spectrum. This means that 802.11a radios will talk to 802.11a radios at around 5
GHz, and 802.11b/g radios will talk to other 802.11b/g radios at around 2.4 GHz. But an 802.11a
device cannot interoperate with an 802.11b/g device, since they use completely different parts
of the electromagnetic spectrum. More specifically, wireless interfaces must agree on a common
channel. If one 802.11b radio card is set to channel 2 while another is set to channel 11, then
the radios cannot communicate with each other.</t>
<t>When two wireless interfaces are configured to use the same protocol on the same radio channel,
then they are ready to negotiate data link layer connectivity. Each 802.11a/b/g device can operate
in one of four possible modes:</t>
<t>1. Master mode (also called AP or infrastructure mode) is used to create a service that looks
like a traditional Access Point. The wireless interface creates a network with a specified name
(called the SSID, Service Set IDentifier) and channel, and offers network services on it. While
in master mode, wireless
interfaces manage all communications related to the network (authenticating wireless clients,
handling channel contention, repeating packets, etc.) Wireless interfaces in master mode can only
communicate with interfaces that are associated with them in managed mode.</t>
<t>2. Managed mode is sometimes also referred to as client mode. Wireless interfaces in managed mode
will join a network created by a master, and will automatically change their channel to match it.
They then present any necessary credentials to the master, and if those credentials are accepted,
they are associated with the master. Managed mode interfaces do not communicate with
each other directly, and only communicate with an associated master.</t>
<t>3. Ad-hoc mode creates a multipoint-to-multipoint network where there is no single master node
or AP. In ad-hoc mode, each wireless interface communicates directly with its neighbours. Nodes
must be in range of each other to communicate, and must agree on a network name and channel. Ad-hoc
mode is often also called Mesh Networking.</t>
<t>4. Monitor mode is used by some tools (such as Kismet) to passively listen to all radio traffic
on a given channel. When in monitor mode, wireless interfaces transmit no data. This is useful for
analysing problems on a wireless link or observing spectrum usage in the local area. Monitor mode
is not used for normal communications.</t>
<t>When implementing a point-to-point or point-to-multipoint link, one radio will typically operate
in master mode, while the other(s) operate in managed mode. In a multipoint-to-multipoint mesh,
the radios all operate in ad-hoc mode so that they can communicate with each other directly.
Managed mode clients cannot communicate with each other directly, so a high repeater site is
required in master or ad-hoc mode. Ad-hoc is more flexible but has a number
of performance issues as compared to using the master / managed modes.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="GSM">
<t>GSM has also been used in Alternative Networks as Layer 2 option, as explained in <xref target="Mexican"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Dynamic Spectrum">
<!-- To be written by David Johnson -->
<t>Some Alternative Networks make use of TV White Spaces – a set of UHF and VHF
television frequencies that can be utilized by secondary users in locations
where it is 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 which are able to modify their frequency, power and
modulation techniques to meet the strict operating conditions required for
secondary users.</t>
<t>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 <xref target="IEEE.802-11AF.2013"></xref>
– an adaptation of the 802.11
standard for TV white space bands and (ii) the IEEE 802.22 standard
<xref target="IEEE.802-22.2011"></xref> for long-range rural communication.</t>
<section title="802.11af">
<t>802.11af <xref target="IEEE.802-11AF.2013"></xref> 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
WiFi 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 modulation but with improved in-building penetration and
outdoor coverage. The maximum data rate achievable is 426.7 Mbps for
countries with 6/7 MHz channels and 568.9 Mbps for countries with 8 MHz
channels. Coverage is typically limited to 1km although longer range
at lower throughput and using high gain antennas will be possible.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="802.22">
<t>802.22 <xref target="IEEE.802-22.2011"></xref> is a standard developed specifically for long range rural
communications in TV white space frequencies and first approved in July
2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16 (WiMax)
<xref target="IEEE.802-16.2008"></xref> standard with an
added cognitive radio ability. The maximum throughput of 802.22 is
22.6 Mbps 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 CPEs are sent before slots destined
for nearby CPEs.</t>
<t>Base stations are required to have a 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 white space TV channel with the Client Premises
Equipment (CPE) devices. The standard also has a co-existence 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.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Network and architecture issues">
<section title="Layer 3">
<section title="IP addressing">
<!-- Written by Bart -->
<t>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 <xref target="Avonts">
</xref> indicated that IPv6 rollout presents a challenge to Community Networks.</t>
<t>Most Community Networks use private IPv4 address ranges, as defined by <xref
target="RFC1918">RFC 1918</xref>. The motivation for this was the lower cost and the simplified
IP allocation because of the large available address ranges.</t>
</section>
<section title="Routing protocols">
<!-- Written by Bart -->
<t>Alternative Networks are composed of possibly different layer 2 devices, resulting in a mesh
of nodes. Connection between different nodes is not guaranteed and the link
stability can vary strongly over time. To tackle this, some Alternative Networks use mesh network
routing protocols while other networks use more traditional routing protocols. Some networks
operate multiple routing protocols in parallel. For example, they use a mesh protocol inside different
islands and use traditional routing protocols to connect islands.</t>
<section title="Traditional routing protocols">
<!-- Written by Bart -->
<t>The BGP protocol, as defined by <xref target="RFC4271">RFC 4271</xref> is used by a
number of Community Networks, because of its well-studied behavior and scalability.</t>
<t>For similar reasons, smaller networks opt to run the OSPF protocol, as
defined by <xref target="RFC2328">RFC 2328</xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Mesh routing protocols">
<!-- Written by Bart -->
<t>A large number of Alternative Networks use the OLSR routing protocol as defined in <xref
target="RFC3626">RFC 3626</xref>. The pro-active link state routing protocol is a good
match with Alternative Networks because it has good performance in mesh networks where
nodes have multiple interfaces.</t>
<t>The Better Approach To Mobile Adhoc Networking (BATMAN) <xref
target="Abolhasan "></xref> protocol was developed
by members of the Freifunk community. The protocol handles all routing at layer 2,
creating one bridged network.</t>
<t>Parallel to BGP, some networks also run the BMX6 protocol <xref target="Neumann">
</xref>. This is an advanced version
of the BATMAN protocol which is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the social structure
of Alternative Networks.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Upper layers">
<!-- Written by Andres -->
<t>From 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. There should be
an adequate Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism that implements a Less than Best Effort (LBE)
policy for the user and protects the sharer. Achieving LBE behaviour requires the appropriate
tuning of the well known mechanisms such as ECN, or RED, or others more recent AQM mechanisms
such as CoDel and PIE that aid on keeping low latency <xref target="RFC6297">RFC 6297</xref>.</t>
<t>The user traffic should not interfere with the sharer’s traffic. However, other bottlenecks
besides client’s access bottleneck may not be controlled by the previously mentioned protocols.
Therefore, recently proposed transport protocols like LEDBAT <xref target="Ros"></xref>,
<xref target="Komnios"></xref> with the purpose of transporting scavenger
traffic may be a solution. LEDBAT requires the cooperation of both the client and the server
to achieve certain target delay, therefore controlling the impact of the user along all the
path.</t>
<t>There are applications that manage aspects of the network from the sharer side and from the client
side. From sharer's side, there are applications to centralise the management of the APs
conforming the network that have been recently proposed by means of SDN <xref target="Sathiaseelan_a">
</xref>, <xref target="Suresh"></xref>. There are also other proposals such as Wi2Me
<xref target="Lampropulos"></xref> that manage the connection to several Community Networks from the client’s
side. These applications have shown to improve the client performance compared to a single-Community Network
client.</t>
<t>On the other hand, transport protocols inside a multiple hop wireless mesh network are
likely to suffer performance degradation for multiple reasons, e.g., hidden terminal problem,
unnecessary delays on the TCP ACK clocking that decrease the throughout or route changing
<xref target="Hanbali"></xref>. There are some options for network configuration.
The implementation of an
easy-to-adopt solution for TCP over mesh networks may be implemented from two different
perspectives. One way is to use a TCP-proxy to transparently deal with the different
impairments (<xref target="RFC3135">RFC 3135</xref>). Another way is to adopt end-to-end
solutions for monitoring the connection delay so that the receiver adapts the TCP reception
window (rwnd) <xref target="Castignani_c"></xref>. Similarly, the
ACK Congestion Control (ACKCC) mechanism <xref target="RFC5690">RFC 5690</xref> could deal
with TCP-ACK clocking impairments
due to inappropriate delay on ACK packets. ACKCC compensates in an end-to-end fashion the
throughput degradation due to the effect of media contention as well as the unfairness
experienced by multiple uplink TCP flows in a congested Wi-Fi access.</t>
<section title="Services provided by Alternative Networks">
<t>This section provides an overview of the services between hosts inside the network. They can
be divided into Intranet services, connecting hosts between them, and Internet services,
connecting to nodes outside the network.</t>
<section title="Intranet services">
<t>Intranet services can include, but are not limited to:</t>
<t>- VoIP (e.g. with SIP)</t>
<t>- Remote desktop (e.g. using my home computer and my Internet connection when I
am on holidays in a village).</t>
<t>- FTP file sharing (e.g. distribution of Linux software).</t>
<t>- P2P file sharing.</t>
<t>- Public video cameras.</t>
<t>- DNS.</t>
<t>- Online games servers.</t>
<t>- Jabber instant messaging.</t>
<t>- IRC chat.</t>
<t>- Weather stations.</t>
<t>- NTP.</t>
<t>- Network monitoring.</t>
<t>- Videoconferencing / streaming.</t>
<t>- Radio streaming.</t>
</section>
<section title="Access to the Internet">
<section title="Web browsing proxies">
<t>A number of federated proxies MAY provide web browsing service for the users. Other services
(file sharing, skype, etc.) are not usually allowed in many Alternative Networks due
to bandwidth limitations.</t>
</section>
<section title="Use of VPNs">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Topology">
<t>Alternative Networks follow different topology patterns, as studied in <xref target="Vega"></xref>.</t>
<!-- Perhaps we could summarize the cited paper, talking about how these networks grow, etc.-->
<!-- Written by Andres -->
<t>Regularly rural areas in these networks are connected through long-distance links (the so-called
community mesh approach) which in turn convey the Internet connection to relevant
organisations 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 <xref target="Fon"></xref>
may constitute a way to extend
the user capacity (or gain connection) to the network. Other proposals like Virtual
Public Networks <xref target="Sathiaseelan_a"></xref> can also extend the
service.</t>
<t>As in the case of main Internet Service Providers in France, Community Networks
for urban areas are conceived as a set of APs sharing a common SSID among the clients
favouring the nomadic access. For users in France, ISPs promise to cause a little
impact on their service agreement when the shared network service is activated on clients’ APs.
Nowadays, millions of APs are deployed around the country performing services of
nomadism and 3G offloading, however as some studies demonstrate, at walking speed,
there is a fair chance of performing file transfers <xref target="Castignani_a"></xref>,
<xref target="Castignani_b"></xref>. Scenarios studied in France and Luxembourg show
that the density of APs in urban areas (mainly in downtown and residential areas)
is quite big and from different ISPs. Moreover, performed studies reveal that aggregating
available networks can be
beneficial to the client by using an application that manages the best connection
among the different networks. For improving the scanning process (or topology recognition),
which consumes the 90% of the connection/reconnection process to the Community Network,
the client may implement several techniques for selecting the best AP
<xref target="Castignani_c"></xref>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>This work has been partially funded by the CONFINE European Commission Project (FP7 – 288535).</t>
<t>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:</t>
<t>Paul M. Aoki, Roger Baig, Jaume Barcelo, Steven G. Huter, Rohan Mahy, Rute Sofia,
Dirk Trossen.</t>
<t>A special thanks to the GAIA Working Group chairs Matt Ford and Arjuna Sathiaseelan
for their support and guidance.</t>
</section>
<!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->
<section anchor="Contributing_Authors" title="Contributing Authors">
<figure align="left">
<artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
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
Village Telco Limited
Halifax
Canada
Phone:
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 ]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This memo includes no request to IANA.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>No security issues have been identified for this document.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** -->
<back>
<!-- References split into informative and normative -->
<!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
(for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")
Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
with a value containing a set of directories to search. These can be either in the local
filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->
<references title="Normative References">
&RFC1918;
&RFC2119;
&RFC2328;
&RFC3135;
&RFC3626;
&RFC4271;
&RFC5690;
&RFC6297;
<reference anchor="IEEE.802-11A.1999" target="http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11a-1999.pdf">
<front>
<title>
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 - High-speed Physical Layer in the 5 GHZ Band
</title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="Sept" year="1999"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.11a"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IEEE.802-11B.1999" target="http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11b-1999.pdf">
<front>
<title>
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 - Higher-Speed Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band
</title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="Sept" year="1999"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.11b"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IEEE.802-11G.2003" target="http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11g-2003.pdf">
<front>
<title>
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 4: Further Higher Data Rate Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band
</title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="Jun" year="2003"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.11g"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IEEE.802-11N.2009" target="http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11n-2009.pdf">
<front>
<title>
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: Enhancements for Higher Throughput </title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="Oct" year="2009"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.11n"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IEEE.802-11AF.2013" target="http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11af-2013.pdf">
<front>
<title>
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 </title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="Oct" year="2009"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.11af"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IEEE.802-16.2008" target="http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.16-2012.pdf">
<front>
<title>
Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Broadband wireless metropolitan area networks (MANs) - IEEE Standard for Air Interface for Broadband Wireless Access Systems </title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="Jun" year="2008"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.16"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IEEE.802-22.2011" target="http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11af-2013.pdf">
<front>
<title>
Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - 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 </title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="Jul" year="2011"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.22"/>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="Abolhasan" target="">
<front>
<title>Real-world performance of current proactive multi-hop mesh protocols</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Abolhasan">
<organization>University of Wollongong</organization>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Hagelstein">
<organization>University of Wollongong</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J.P." surname="Wang">
<organization>University of Wollongong</organization>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="In Communications, 2009. APCC 2009. 15th Asia-Pacific Conference on (pp. 44-47). IEEE." value="" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Airjaldi" target="">
<front>
<title>Airjaldi service</title>
<author initials="Airjaldi" surname="Rural Broadband (RBB) Pvt. Ltd.">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2015" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Airjaldi web page, www.airjaldi.net" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Avonts" target="">
<front>
<title>A Questionnaire based Examination of Community Networks</title>
<author initials="J." surname="Avonts">
<organization>University of Antwerp - iMinds</organization>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Braem">
<organization>University of Antwerp - iMinds</organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Blondia">
<organization>University of Antwerp - iMinds</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on (pp. 8-15)" value="" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Bernardi" target="">
<front>
<title>Tegola tiered mesh network testbed in rural Scotland</title>
<author initials="B." surname="Bernardi">
<organization>University of Edinburgh</organization>
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Buneman">
<organization>University of Edinburgh</organization>
</author>
<author initials="M.K." surname="Marina">
<organization>University of Edinburgh</organization>
</author>
<date year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Proceedings of the 2008 ACM workshop on Wireless networks and systems for developing regions (WiNS-DR '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9-16" value="" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Braem" target="">
<front>
<title>A case for research with and on community networks</title>
<author initials="B." surname="Braem">
<organization>University of Antwerp - iMinds</organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Baig Viñas">
<organization>Guifi, Spain</organization>
</author>
<author initials="A.L." surname="Kaplan">
<organization>Funkfeuer, Austria</organization>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Neumann">
<organization>Pangea, Spain</organization>
</author>
<author initials="I." surname="Vilata i Balaguer">
<organization>Pangea, Spain</organization>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Tatum">
<organization>OPLAN, United Kingdom</organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Matson">
<organization>OPLAN, United Kingdom</organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Blondia">
<organization>University of Antwerp - iMinds</organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Barz">
<organization>Fraunhofer FKIE</organization>
</author>
<author initials="H." surname="Rogge">
<organization>Fraunhofer FKIE</organization>
</author>
<author initials="F." surname="Freitag">
<organization>Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain</organization>
</author>
<author initials="L." surname="Navarro">
<organization>Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Bonicioli">
<organization>AWMN, Greece</organization>
</author>
<author initials="S." surname="Papathanasiou">
<organization>AWMN, Greece</organization>
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Escrich">
<organization>Guifi, Spain</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review" value="vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 68-73" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Castignani_a" target="">
<front>
<title>An Evaluation of IEEE 802.11 Community Networks Deployments</title>
<author initials="G." surname="Castignani">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<author initials="L." surname="Loiseau">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<author initials="N." surname="Montavont">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<date year="2011" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Information Networking (ICOIN), 2011 International Conference on , vol., no., pp.498,503, 26-28" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Castignani_b" target="">
<front>
<title>A Study of Urban IEEE 802.11 Hotspot Networks: Towards a Community Access Network</title>
<author initials="G." surname="Castignani">
<organization>University of Luxembourg / SnT</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Monetti">
<organization>University of Luxembourg / SnT</organization>
</author>
<author initials="N." surname="Montavont">
<organization>Institut Mines-Telecom / Telecom Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Arcia-Moret">
<organization>International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP)</organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Frank">
<organization>University of Luxembourg / SnT</organization>
</author>
<author initials="T." surname="Engel">
<organization>University of Luxembourg / SnT</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Wireless Days (WD), 2013 IFIP , pp.1,8, 13-15" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Castignani_c" target="">
<front>
<title>A study of the discovery process in 802.11 networks</title>
<author initials="G." surname="Castignani">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Arcia-Moret">
<organization>Universidad de Los Andes, Merida, Venezuela</organization>
</author>
<author initials="N." surname="Montavont">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<date year="2011" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 25" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="DAE" target="">
<front>
<title>A Digital Agenda for Europe</title>
<author initials="EC" surname="European Commission">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Communication from the Commission of 19 May 2010 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Digital Agenda for Europe" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Everylayer" target="">
<front>
<title>Everylayer</title>
<author initials="Everylayer" surname="former Volo Broadband">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2015" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Everylayer web page, http://www.everylayer.com/" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Flickenger" target="">
<front>
<title>Very Long Distance Wi-Fi Networks</title>
<author initials="R." surname="Flickenger">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="S." surname="Okay">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="E." surname="Pietrosemoli">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Zennaro">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Fonda">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="NSDR 2008, The Second ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Networked Systems for Developing Regions. USA, 2008" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Fon" target="">
<front>
<title>What is Fon</title>
<author initials="Fon" surname="Fon Wireless Limited">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2014" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Fon web page, https://corp.fon.com/en" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="FNF" target="">
<front>
<title>The Free Network Foundation</title>
<author initials="FNF" surname="The Free Network Foundation">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2014" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="The Free Network Foundation web page, https://thefnf.org/" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Hanbali" target="">
<front>
<title>A Survey of TCP over Ad Hoc Networks</title>
<author initials="A. Al" surname="Hanbali">
<organization>INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France</organization>
</author>
<author initials="E." surname="Altman">
<organization>INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France</organization>
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Nain">
<organization>INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France</organization>
</author>
<date year="2005" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 7, pp. 22–36" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Heer" target="">
<front>
<title>Collaborative municipal Wi-Fi networks-challenges and opportunities</title>
<author initials="T." surname="Heer">
<organization>RWTH Aachen Universiy</organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Hummen">
<organization>RWTH Aachen Universiy</organization>
</author>
<author initials="N." surname="Viol">
<organization>RWTH Aachen Universiy</organization>
</author>
<author initials="H." surname="Wirtz">
<organization>RWTH Aachen Universiy</organization>
</author>
<author initials="S." surname="Gotz">
<organization>RWTH Aachen Universiy</organization>
</author>
<author initials="K." surname="Wehrle">
<organization>RWTH Aachen Universiy</organization>
</author>
<date year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2010 8th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 588-593). IEEE." value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IEEE" target="">
<front>
<title>IEEE Standards association</title>
<author>
<organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE</organization>
</author>
<date year="2012"></date>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Komnios" target="">
<front>
<title>LEDBAT performance in subpacket regimes</title>
<author initials="I." surname="Komnios">
<organization>Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain</organization>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Sathiaseelan">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge, UK</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Crowcroft">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge, UK</organization>
</author>
<date year="2014" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE/IFIP WONS, Austria, April 2014" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Lowenstedt" target="">
<front>
<title>Lowenstedt Villagers Built Own Fiber Optic Network</title>
<author initials="J." surname="Huggler">
<organization>The Telegraph</organization>
</author>
<date year="2014" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="The Telegraph, 03 Jun 2014, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10871150/German-villagers-set-up-their-own-broadband-network.html" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Mexican" target="">
<front>
<title>Lowenstedt Villagers Built Own Fiber Optic Network</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Varma">
<organization>The Times of India</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="The Times of India, 27 Aug 2013, available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Ignored-by-big-companies-Mexican-village-creates-its-own-mobile-service/articleshow/22094736.cms" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Neumann" target="">
<front>
<title>An evaluation of bmx6 for community wireless networks</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Neumann">
<organization>UPC</organization>
</author>
<author initials="E." surname="Lopez">
<organization>UPC</organization>
</author>
<author initials="L." surname="Navarro">
<organization>UPC</organization>
</author>
<date year="2012" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="In Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on (pp. 651-658). IEEE." value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="PAWS" target="">
<front>
<title>Public Access WiFi Service (PAWS)</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Sathiaseelan">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Crowcroft">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Goulden">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Greiffenhagen">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Mortier">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="G." surname="Fairhurst">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="D." surname="McAuley">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="Oct" year="2012" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Digital Economy All Hands Meeting, Aberdeen" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Pietrosemoli" target="">
<front>
<title>Low cost carrier independent telecommunications infrastructure</title>
<author initials="E." surname="Pietrosemoli">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Zennaro">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Fonda">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="2012" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="In proc. 4th Global Information Infrastructure and Networking Symposium, Choroni, Venezuela" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Rendon" target="">
<front>
<title>Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones para zonas rurales Aplicación a la atención de salud en países en desarrollo</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Rendon">
<organization>Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain</organization>
</author>
<author initials="P.J." surname="Ludena">
<organization>Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain</organization>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Martinez Fernandez">
<organization>Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain</organization>
</author>
<date year="2011" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="CYTED. Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Ros" target="">
<front>
<title>Assessing LEDBAT's Delay Impact</title>
<author initials="D." surname="Ros">
<organization> Institut Mines-Telecom / Telecom Bretagne, France</organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Welzl">
<organization>University of Oslo, Norway</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Communications Letters, IEEE , vol.17, no.5, pp.1044,1047, May 2013" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Samanta" target="">
<front>
<title>Metropolitan Wi-Fi Research Network at the Los Angeles State Historic Park</title>
<author initials="V." surname="Samanta">
<organization>UCLA, Los Angeles, USA</organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Knowles">
<organization>UCLA, Los Angeles, USA</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Wagmister">
<organization>UCLA, Los Angeles, USA</organization>
</author>
<author initials="D." surname="Estrin">
<organization>UCLA, Los Angeles, USA</organization>
</author>
<date month="May" year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="The Journal of Community Informatics, North America, 4" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Sathiaseelan_a" target="">
<front>
<title>Virtual Public Networks</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Sathiaseelan">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Rotsos">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<author initials="C.S." surname="Sriram">
<organization>Paxtera Solutions</organization>
</author>
<author initials="D." surname="Trossen">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Papadimitriou">
<organization>Leibniz Universitat Hannover</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Crowcroft">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="In Software Defined Networks (EWSDN), 2013 Second European Workshop on (pp. 1-6). IEEE." value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Sathiaseelan_b" target="">
<front>
<title>LCD-Net: Lowest Cost Denominator Networking</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Sathiaseelan">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Crowcroft">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<date month="Apr" year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Sathiaseelan_c" target="">
<front>
<title>A Feasibility Study of an In-the-Wild Experimental Public Access WiFi Network</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Sathiaseelan">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge, UK</organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Mortier">
<organization>University of Nottingham, UK</organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Goulden">
<organization>University of Nottingham, UK</organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Greiffenhagen">
<organization>Loughborough University, UK</organization>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Radenkovic">
<organization>University of Nottingham, UK</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Crowcroft">
<organization>Univ. of Cambridge</organization>
</author>
<author initials="D." surname="McAuley">
<organization>University of Nottingham, UK</organization>
</author>
<date year="2014" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="ACM DEV 5, Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Symposium on Computing for Development, San Jose , Dec 2014" value="pp 33-42"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Suresh" target="">
<front>
<title>Towards Programmable Enterprise WLANs with ODIN</title>
<author initials="L." surname="Suresh">
<organization>Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon, Portugal</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Schulz-Zander">
<organization>Telekom Innovation Laboratories / TU Berlin</organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Merz">
<organization>Telekom Innovation Laboratories / TU Berlin</organization>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Feldmann">
<organization>Telekom Innovation Laboratories / TU Berlin</organization>
</author>
<author initials="T." surname="Vazao">
<organization>Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon, Portugal</organization>
</author>
<date year="2012" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="In Proceedings of the first workshop on Hot topics in software defined networks (HotSDN '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 115-120" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Lampropulos" target="">
<front>
<title>Wi2Me: A Mobile Sensing Platform for Wireless Heterogeneous Networks</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Lampropulos">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<author initials="G." surname="Castignani">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Blanc">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<author initials="N." surname="Montavont">
<organization>IT/TELECOM Bretagne, Univ. Europ. de Bretagne</organization>
</author>
<date year="2012" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="32nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCS Workshops), 2012, pp. 108–113" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Vega" target="">
<front>
<title>Topology patterns of a community network: Guifi. net.</title>
<author initials="D." surname="Vega">
<organization>Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya</organization>
</author>
<author initials="L." surname="Cerda-Alabern">
<organization>Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya</organization>
</author>
<author initials="L." surname="Navarro">
<organization>Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya</organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Meseguer">
<organization>Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya</organization>
</author>
<date year="2012" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on (pp. 612-619)" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="WNDW" target="">
<front>
<title>Wireless Networking in the Developing World, 3rd Edition</title>
<author>
<organization>Wireless Networking in the Developing World/Core Contributors</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="The WNDW Project, available at wndw.net" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="WSIS" target="">
<front>
<title>Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: A global challenge in the new millenium</title>
<author>
<organization>International Telecommunications Union, ITU</organization>
</author>
<date month="Dec" year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="World Summit on the Information Society, 2003, at http://www.itu.int/wsis, accessed 12 January 2004." value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Zennaro" target="">
<front>
<title>On a long wireless link for rural telemedicine in Malawi</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Zennaro">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Fonda">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="E." surname="Pietrosemoli">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Muyepa">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="S." surname="Okay">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Flickenger">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="S.M." surname="Radicella">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="Nov" year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="6th International Conference on Open Access, Lilongwe, Malawi" value=""/>
</reference>
</references>
<!-- Change Log
-->
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:42:26 |