Global Access to the Internet for All                    J. Saldana, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    University of Zaragoza
Intended status: Informational                            A. Arcia-Moret
Expires: September 19, 2016                      University of Cambridge
                                                                B. Braem
                                                         E. Pietrosemoli
                                                    The Abdus Salam ICTP
                                                         A. Sathiaseelan
                                                 University of Cambridge
                                                              M. Zennaro
                                                    The Abdus Salam ICTP
                                                          March 18, 2016

      Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, characterization,
                     technologies and architectures


   This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative Network
   Deployments" emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing
   Internet connectivity to people.  They employ architectures and
   topologies different from those of mainstream networks, and rely on
   alternative 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, and networks
   that provide connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 19, 2016.

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
   ( 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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Mainstream networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Alternative Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Scenarios where Alternative Networks are deployed . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Urban vs. Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Topology patterns followed by Alternative Networks  . . .   9
   4.  Classification criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Commercial model / promoter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Goals and motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Administrative model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Technologies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5.  Typical scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Classification of Alternative Networks  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Community Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs  . . . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Shared infrastructure model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.4.  Crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party
           stakeholders  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.5.  Testbeds for research purposes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  Technologies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.1.  Wired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.2.  Wireless  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       6.2.1.  Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

               Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19  802.11 (Wi-Fi)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19  GSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19  Dynamic Spectrum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   7.  Upper layers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.1.  Layer 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.1.1.  IP addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.1.2.  Routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21  Traditional routing protocols . . . . . . . . . .  22  Mesh routing protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.2.  Transport layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       7.2.1.  Traffic Management when sharing network resources . .  22
     7.3.  Services provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.3.1.  Intranet services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.3.2.  Access to the Internet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23  Web browsing proxies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24  Use of VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   9.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   12. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33

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 connection, following
   topological, architectural 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) due to the reduced cost of using unlicensed spectrum.
   Wired technologies such as fiber are also used in some of these

   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

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   (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.

   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.

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

   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 and maintenance.

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".

2.  Terms used in this document

   This document follows a multidisciplinary approach, considering the
   multidisciplinary nature of the Internet and the problems being
   addressed.  Therefore, some concepts used in fields and disciplines
   different from networking are being used.  This subsection summarizes
   these terms, and the meaning being attributed to them.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 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),
      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].

   o  Rural zone.  The document will follow the definition of "rural "
      proposed by G.  P.  Wibberley in 1972 [Wibberley]: "The word
      describes those parts of a country which show unmistakable signs
      of being dominated by extensive uses of land, either at the
      present time or in the immediate past.  It is important to
      emphasise that these extensive uses might have had a domination
      over an area which has now gone because this allows us to look at
      settlements which to the eye still appear to be rural but which,
      in practice, are merely an extension of the city resulting from
      the development of the commuter train and the private motor car"

   o  Urban zone.  The definition of "urban" does vary between
      countries, as shown in [UNStats].  For example, in the United
      States they are defined as "Agglomerations of 2 500 or more
      inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000
      persons per square mile or more."  In China the term "city" is
      proper of those designated by the State Council.  In Liberia they
      are "Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants."  In France they are
      "communes containing an agglomeration of more than 2 000
      inhabitants living in contiguous houses or with not more than 200
      metres between houses."  In Guam, they are "agglomerations of 2
      500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of
      1 000 persons per square mile or more, referred to as "urban

   o  Demand: In economics, it describes a consumer's desire and
      willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   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 market permanently fails to
      provide the information and communications services demanded by
      the population.

   o  "Free Networks" (also called "Network Commons") [FNF].  A
      definition of Free Network is proposed by the Free Network
      Foundation (see as the one that "equitably
      grants the following freedoms to all:

      *  Freedom 0 - The freedom to communicate for any purpose, without
         discrimination, interference, or interception.

      *  Freedom 1 - The freedom to grow, improve, communicate across,
         and connect to the whole network.

      *  Freedom 2- The freedom to study, use, remix, and share any
         network communication mechanisms, in their most reusable

   o  The principles of Free, Open and Neutral Networks have also been
      summarized (see this way:

      *  "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

      *  You have the right to understand the network, to know its
         components, and to spread knowledge of its mechanisms and

      *  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

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

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   distributed: only 31 percent of the population in "global south"
   countries had access in 2014, against 80 percent in "global north"
   countries [WorldBank2016].  This is one of the reasons behind the
   inclusion of the objective of providing "significantly increase
   access to ICT and strive to provide universal and affordable access
   to internet in LDCs 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 (Information and Communication Technologies), which
   can be quantified in terms of:

   o  The availability of both national and international bandwidth, as
      well as equipment.

   o  The difficulty to pay for the services and the devices required to
      access the ICTs.

   o  The instability and or lack of power supply.

   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

   In this context, the World Summit of the Information Society 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 [WSIS].

   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 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

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   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 content and services
   targeting the locality of each network.

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], 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 for providing access and that, at the same time, challenge
   the deployment of alternative infrastructures [Brewer], [Nungu],

   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 infrastructure, such as electricity,
      water and access roads.

   o  Low population density and distance (spatial or affective) 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 trained to migrate due to lack of
      opportunities and low salaries in rural areas, or to start their
      own companies [McMahon].

   o  High cost of Internet access [Mathee].

   o  Harsh environments leading to failure in electronic communication
      devices [Johnson].

   However, the proliferation of urban Community Networks, where
   scarcity of spectrum, scale, and heterogeneity of devices pose
   certain challenges to their stability and the services they aim to

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   provide, has fuelled the creation of low-cost, low-consumption, low-
   complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices.  These devices can
   simplify 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].  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.  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 example corresponds to [Vega] with an
   exponential growth rate in the number of operating nodes during the
   last decade.

   Regularly, rural areas in these networks are connected through long-
   distance links (the so-called community mesh approach) which in turn
   conveys 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.  Commercial model / promoter

   The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting an Alternative
   Network can be:

   o  A community of users.

   o  A public stakeholder.

   o  A private company.

   o  Supporters of a crowdshared approach.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   o  A community that already owns some infrastructure shares it with
      an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes.

   o  A research or academic entity.

4.2.  Goals and motivation

   Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the
   underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and usage

   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 on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network

   o  Leveraging expertise.

   o  Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in
      general; relevance, etc.)

   o  Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities).

   o  Network neutrality guarantees.

4.3.  Administrative model

   o  Centralized, where a single authority (e.g. a company, a public
      stakeholder) plans and manages the network.

   o  Non-centralized, i.e. the network is managed following a
      distributed approach, in which a whole community may participate.
      The network may also grow according to the fact of new users
      joining it, but not following a plan.

4.4.  Technologies employed

   o  Standard Wi-Fi.  Many Alternative Networks are based on the
      standard IEEE 802.11 [IEEE.802-11-2012] using the Distributed
      Coordination Function.

   o  Wi-Fi modified for long distances (WiLD), either with CSMA/CA or
      with an alternative TDMA MAC [Simo_b].

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   o  802.16-compliant (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] systems over non-
      licensed bands.

   o  Dynamic Spectrum Solutions (e.g. based on the use of 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.2013] or 802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011].

   o  Satellite solutions can also be employed to give coverage to wide

   o  Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in
      some villages.

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 which 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.

   In some cases, real examples of Alternative Networks are cited.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

5.1.  Community Networks

   | Commercial         | community                                    |
   | model/promoter     |                                              |
   | Goals and          | reducing hurdles; to serve underserved       |
   | motivation         | areas; network neutrality                    |
   | Administration     | non-centralized                              |
   | Technologies       | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012], optical fiber      |
   | Typical scenarios  | urban and rural                              |

           Table 1: Community Networks' characteristics summary

   Community Networks are large-scale, non-centralized, self-managed
   networks sharing these characteristics:

   o  They start and grow organically, they are open to participation
      from everyone, sharing an open peering agreement.  Community
      members directly contribute active (not just passive) network
      infrastructure.  The network grows as new hosts and links are

   o  Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership
      of the network itself is non-centralized and open.  There is a
      shared platform (e.g.  a web site) where a minimum coordination is
      performed.  This way, community members with the right permissions
      have an obvious and direct form of organizational control over the
      overall operation of the network (e.g.  IP addresses, routing,
      etc.) in their community (not just their own participation in the

   o  The network can serve as a backhaul for providing a whole range of
      services and applications, from completely free to even commercial

   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.  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

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   addressing, routing, etc.  An example of this kind of Community
   Network is described in [Braem].  These networks follow a
   participatory model, which has been shown effective in connecting
   geographically dispersed people, thus enhancing and extending digital
   Internet rights.

   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 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.

   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 keeps the
   ownership of what he/she has contributed.

   The majority of Community Networks comply with the definition of Free
   Network, included in Section 2.

5.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs

   | Commercial     | company                                          |
   | model/promoter |                                                  |
   | Goals and      | to serve underserved areas; to reduce capital    |
   | motivation     | expenditures in Internet access; to provide      |
   |                | additional sources of capital                    |
   | Administration | centralized                                      |
   | Technologies   | wireless e.g. [IEEE.802-11-2012],                |
   |                | [IEEE.802-16.2008], unlicensed frequencies       |
   | Typical        | rural                                            |
   | scenarios      |                                                  |

                  Table 2: WISPs' characteristics summary

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   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 telcos 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 [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 industrialized markets.  Everylayer [Everylayer], launched
   in 2014, is the first cloud-managed WISP service aimed at emerging

5.3.  Shared infrastructure model

   | Commercial     | shared: companies and users                      |
   | model/promoter |                                                  |
   | Goals and      | to eliminate a capital expenditures barrier (to  |
   | motivation     | operators); lower the operating expenses         |
   |                | (supported by the community); to extend coverage |
   |                | to underserved areas                             |
   | Administration | Non-centralized                                  |
   | Technologies   | wireless in non-licensed bands, [WiLD] and/or    |
   |                | low-cost fiber, mobile femtocells                |
   | Typical        | rural areas, and more particularly rural areas   |
   | scenarios      | in "global south" regions                        |

          Table 3: Shared infrastructure characteristics summary

   In conventional 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

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   the operator nor 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.

   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

   Some real examples can be referenced in the TUCAN3G project, (see which deployed demonstrator networks in
   two regions in the Amazon forest in Peru.  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 belong to the public health
   authorities and were deployed with funds come from international
   cooperation for telemedicine purposes.  Publications that justify the
   feasibility of this approach can also be found on that website.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

5.4.  Crowdshared approaches, led by the users and third party

   | Commercial     | community, public stakeholders, private          |
   | model/promoter | companies, supporters of a crowdshared approach  |
   | Goals and      | sharing connectivity and resources               |
   | motivation     |                                                  |
   | Administration | Non-centralized                                  |
   | Technologies   | Wi-Fi [IEEE.802-11-2012]                         |
   | Typical        | urban and rural                                  |
   | scenarios      |                                                  |

          Table 4: Crowdshared approaches characteristics summary

   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.  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"
   ( also promotes the sharing of private
   wireless networks.

   In the same way, some companies [Fon] promote the use of Wi-Fi
   routers with 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 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
   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 crowd-shared network are summarized below:

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   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; devices.

   o  The owner: End users who sign up for the service and share their
      network capacity.  As a counterpart, they can access another
      owners' home network capacity 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

   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 Virtual Network Operator (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; naming).  A VNO is
      not an Application Service Provider (ASP) either since it does not
      provide user services.  Virtual Operators may also be stakeholders
      with socio-environmental objectives.  They can be local
      governments, grass-roots user communities, charities, or even
      content operators, smart grid operators, etc.  They are the ones
      who actually run the service.

   o  Network operators, who have a financial incentive to lease out
      unused capacity [Sathiaseelan_b] at 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, the network operators are paid by the VNOs,
   who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

5.5.  Testbeds for research purposes

   | Commercial        | research / academic entity                    |
   | model/promoter    |                                               |
   | Goals and         | research                                      |
   | motivation        |                                               |
   | Administration    | centralized initially, but it may end up in a |
   |                   | non-centralized model.                        |
   | Technologies      | wired and wireless                            |
   | Typical scenarios | urban and rural                               |

                Table 5: Testbeds' characteristics summary

   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 [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 in Germany [Lowenstedt], or some parts of

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.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

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

   Different protocols for Media Access Control, 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.

   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,
   as e.g. the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).  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 the 802.11-2012
   Standard that consolidates all the previous amendments.  The document
   is freely downloadable from IEEE Standards [IEEE].

   The MAC protocol in 802.11 is called CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple
   Access with Collision Avoidance) and was designed for short
   distances; the transmitter expects the reception of an acknowledgment
   for each transmitted unicast packet; 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 (Time Division Multiple Access).  Low cost
   equipment using these techniques can offer high throughput at
   distances above 100 kilometers.  GSM

   GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), from ETSI, has also
   been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained
   in [Mexican], [Village], [Heimerl].  Dynamic Spectrum

   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 they are unused by licensed primary users

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   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.

   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.2013] - an adaptation of the 802.11 standard
   for TV white space bands and (ii) the IEEE 802.22 standard
   [IEEE.802-22.2011] for long-range rural communication.  802.11af

   802.11af [IEEE.802-11AF.2013] 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
   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 1 km although longer
   range at lower throughput and using high gain antennas will be

   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.  802.22

   802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] 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

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] 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 Consumer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are sent
   before slots destined for nearby CPEs.

   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 white space TV
   channel with the CPE devices.  The standard also includes 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.

7.  Upper layers

7.1.  Layer 3

7.1.1.  IP addressing

   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
   presents a challenge to Community Networks.

   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

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.
   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
   may use a mesh protocol inside different islands and rely on
   traditional routing protocols to connect these islands.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016  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].  Mesh routing protocols

   A large number of Alternative Networks use the Optimized Link State
   Routing Protocol (OLSR) as defined in [RFC3626].  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.

   The Better Approach To Mobile Adhoc Networking (BATMAN) [Abolhasan]
   protocol was developed by members of the Freifunk community.  The
   protocol handles all routing at layer 2, creating one bridged

   Parallel to BGP, some networks also run the BatMan-eXperimental
   (BMX6) protocol [Neumann].  This is an advanced version of the BATMAN
   protocol which is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the social
   structure of Alternative Networks.

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.  There should be an adequate Active
   Queue Management (AQM) mechanism that implements a Lower-than-best-
   effort (LBE) [RFC6297] policy for the user and protects the sharer.
   Achieving LBE behavior requires the appropriate tuning of the well
   known mechanisms such as Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
   [RFC3168], or Random Early Detection (RED) [RFC2309], or other more
   recent AQM mechanisms such as Controlled Delay (CoDel) and
   [I-D.ietf-aqm-codel] PIE (Proportional Integral controller Enhanced)
   [I-D.ietf-aqm-pie] that aid low latency.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

7.3.  Services provided

   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.

7.3.1.  Intranet services

   Intranet services can include, but are not limited to:

   o  VoIP (e.g. with SIP).

   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  P2P file sharing.

   o  Public video cameras.

   o  DNS.

   o  Online games servers.

   o  Jabber instant messaging.

   o  IRC chat.

   o  Weather stations.

   o  NTP.

   o  Network monitoring.

   o  Videoconferencing / streaming.

   o  Radio streaming.

   o  Message / Bulletin board.

7.3.2.  Access to the Internet

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016  Web browsing proxies

   A number of federated proxies may provide web browsing service for
   the users.  Other services (file sharing, VoIP, etc.) are not usually
   allowed in many Alternative Networks due to bandwidth limitations.  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.

8.  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:

   Paul M.  Aoki, Roger Baig, Jaume Barcelo, Steven G.  Huter, Rohan
   Mahy, Rute Sofia, Dirk Trossen.

   A special thanks to the GAIA Working Group chairs Mat Ford and Arjuna
   Sathiaseelan for their support and guidance.

9.  Contributing Authors

   Leandro Navarro
   U. Politecnica Catalunya
   Jordi Girona, 1-3, D6
   Barcelona  08034

   Phone: +34 934016807

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   Carlos Rey-Moreno
   University of the Western Cape
   Robert Sobukwe road
   Bellville  7535
   South Africa

   Phone: 0027219592562

   Ioannis Komnios
   Democritus University of Thrace
   Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
   Kimmeria University Campus
   Xanthi 67100

   Phone: +306945406585

   Steve Song
   Village Telco Limited



   David Lloyd Johnson
   Meraka, CSIR
   15 Lower Hope St
   Rosebank 7700
   South Africa

   Phone: +27 (0)21 658 2740

   Javier Simo-Reigadas
   Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieria de Telecomunicacion
   Campus de Fuenlabrada
   Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

   Phone: 91 488 8428 / 7500

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

10.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

11.  Security Considerations

   No security issues have been identified for this document.

12.  Informative References

              Abolhasan, M., Hagelstein, B., and J. Wang, "Real-world
              performance of current proactive multi-hop mesh
              protocols", In Communications, 2009. APCC 2009. 15th Asia-
              Pacific Conference on (pp. 44-47). IEEE. , 2009.

              Rural Broadband (RBB) Pvt. Ltd., Airjaldi., "Airjaldi
              service", Airjaldi web page, , 2015.

   [Avonts]   Avonts, J., Braem, B., and C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire
              based Examination of Community Networks", Proceedings
              Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
              Communications (WiMob), 2013 IEEE 8th International
              Conference on (pp. 8-15) , 2013.

              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 (WiNS-DR '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA,
              9-16 , 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, no. 3, pp. 68-73, 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 vol. 38, no. 6 pp. 25-38, 2005.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

              Cerda-Alabern, L., "On the topology characterization of
    ", Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing,
              Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2012 IEEE 8th
              International Conference on (pp. 389-396) , 2012.

   [Clot]     Clot, H., "Rural geography: an introductory survey",
              Elsevier, Pergamon Oxford Geography Series ISBN:
              978-0-08-017042-8, 2013.

              former Volo Broadband, Everylayer., "Everylayer",
              Everylayer web page, , 2015.

   [FNF]      The Free Network Foundation, FNF., "The Free Network
              Foundation", The Free Network Foundation web page,
     , 2014.

   [Fon]      Fon Wireless Limited, Fon., "What is Fon", Fon web page,
     , 2014.

   [GAIA]     Internet Research Task Force, IRTF., "Charter: Global
              Access to the Internet for All Research Group GAIA",
              available at , 2016.

   [Heer]     Heer, T., Hummen, R., Viol, N., Wirtz, H., Gotz, S., and
              K. Wehrle, "Collaborative municipal Wi-Fi networks-
              challenges and opportunities", Pervasive Computing and
              Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2010 8th IEEE
              International Conference on (pp. 588-593). IEEE. , 2010.

   [Heimerl]  Heimerl, K., Shaddi, H., Ali, K., Brewer, E., and T.
              Parikh, "The Village Base Station", In ICTD 2013, Cape
              Town, South Africa , 2013.

              Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., and J. Iyengar,
              "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management", draft-ietf-
              aqm-codel-02 (work in progress), December 2015.

              Pan, R., Natarajan, P., and F. Baker, "PIE: A Lightweight
              Control Scheme To Address the Bufferbloat Problem", draft-
              ietf-aqm-pie-03 (work in progress), November 2015.

   [IEEE]     Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE,
              "IEEE Standards association", 2012.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

              "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 Standard 802.11-2012,
              2012, <

              "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 Standard 802.11af, Oct
              2009, <

              "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 Standard 802.16, Jun 2008,

              "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", IEEE Standard
              802.22, Jul 2011, <

              International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD.,
              "Rural Poverty Report 2011, International Fund for
              Agricultural Development", Ed., Roma, Italia Nov 2011,

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

              InternetWorldStats, IWS., "World Internet Users and 2015
              Population Stats", :
    ]. Accessed
              2016, 2015.

   [ITU2011]  International Telecommunication Union, ITU., "ITU, World
              Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database",
     Accessed 2011,

   [Johnson]  Johnson, D. and K. Roux, "Building Rural Wireless
              Networks: Lessons Learnt and Future Directions", WiNS-
              DR'08 pp. 17-22, 2008, 2008.

              Huggler, J., "Lowenstedt Villagers Built Own Fiber Optic
              Network", The Telegraph, 03 Jun 2014, available at
              German-villagers-set-up-their-own-broadband-network.html ,

   [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 (ICTD 2007) pp. 1-12, 2007, 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, 2014, 2014.

   [Mexican]  Varma, S., "Mexican village creates its own mobile
              service", The Times of India, 27 Aug 2013, available at
              mobile-service/articleshow/22094736.cms , 2013.

   [Neumann]  Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "An evaluation of
              bmx6 for community wireless networks", In Wireless and
              Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob),
              2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on (pp. 651-658).
              IEEE. , 2012.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   [Norris]   Norris, P., "Digital divide: Civic engagement, information
              poverty, and the Internet worldwide", Cambridge University
              Press 2001, 2001.

   [Nungu]    Nungu, A., Knutsson, B., and B. Pehrson, "On Building
              Sustainable Broadband Networks in Rural Areas", Technical
              Symposium at ITU Telecom World July 2011, pp. 135-140.,

   [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, Aberdeen , Oct 2012.

              Pietrosemoli, E., Zennaro, M., and C. Fonda, "Low cost
              carrier independent telecommunications infrastructure", In
              proc. 4th Global Information Infrastructure and Networking
              Symposium, Choroni, Venezuela , 2012.

   [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, ExtremeCom '11 ACM, 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,

   [RFC2309]  Braden, B., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B., Deering,
              S., Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., Minshall, G.,
              Partridge, C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan, K., Shenker,
              S., Wroclawski, J., and L. Zhang, "Recommendations on
              Queue Management and Congestion Avoidance in the
              Internet", RFC 2309, DOI 10.17487/RFC2309, April 1998,

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,

   [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,

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   [RFC3626]  Clausen, T., Ed. and P. Jacquet, Ed., "Optimized Link
              State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3626, October 2003,

   [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,

   [RFC6297]  Welzl, M. and D. Ros, "A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort
              Transport Protocols", RFC 6297, DOI 10.17487/RFC6297, June
              2011, <>.

   [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, North America, 4 , May 2008.

              Sathiaseelan, A., Rotsos, C., Sriram, C., Trossen, D.,
              Papadimitriou, P., and J. Crowcroft, "Virtual Public
              Networks", In Software Defined Networks (EWSDN), 2013
              Second European Workshop on (pp. 1-6). IEEE. , 2013.

              Sathiaseelan, A. and J. Crowcroft, "LCD-Net: Lowest Cost
              Denominator Networking", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
              Communication Review , Apr 2013.

              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", ACM DEV 5, Proceedings of the Fifth
              ACM Symposium on Computing for Development, San Jose , Dec
              2014 pp 33-42, 2014.

   [SDG]      United Nations, UN., "Sustainable Development Goalx",
              United Nations, Sustainable Development Knowledge

   [Shi]      Shi, J., Gui, L., Koutsonikolas, D., Qiao, C., and G.
              Challen, "Metropolitan Wi-Fi Research Network at the Los
              Angeles State Historic Park", HotWireless '15 Proceedings
              of the 2nd International Workshop on Hot Topics in
              Wireless , Sep 2015.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   [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", EUCNC
              2014 , 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, 9(6), pp. 881-896 , 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(3), pp. 24-30, June 2008, 2008.

   [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, Tech. Rep. , 2014.

   [UN]       United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), Department of
              Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), , "Composition of
              macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical
              sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings",
              Country or area and region codes, Composition of regions

   [UNStats]  United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), Department of
              Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), , "Urban and total
              population by sex: 1996-2005", Demographic Yearbook,
              Table 6, notes
              dyb2005/notestab06.pdf, accessed Mar 2016, 2005.

   [Vega]     Vega, D., Cerda-Alabern, L., Navarro, L., and R. Meseguer,
              "Topology patterns of a community network: Guifi. net.",
              Proceedings Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
              Communications (WiMob), 2012 IEEE 8th International
              Conference on (pp. 612-619) , 2012.

   [Village]  Heimerl, K. and E. Brewer, "The Village Base Station", In
              NSDR 2010, San Francisco, CA, USA , 2010.

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

              Wibberley, G., "Rural activities and rural settlements",
              Mimeographed paper presented at the Town and Country
              Planning Association's Conference London 16-17 Feb 1972,

   [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, p. 1) , Apr 2007.

   [WNDW]     Wireless Networking in the Developing World/Core
              Contributors, "Wireless Networking in the Developing
              World, 3rd Edition", The WNDW Project, available at
     , 2013.

              The World Bank, WB., "World Development Report 2016:
              Digital Dividends", Washington, DC: The World Bank,
              World0developm0000digital0dividends.pdf ISBN:
              978-1-4648-0672-8, 2016.

   [WSIS]     International Telecommunications Union, ITU, "Declaration
              of Principles. Building the Information Society: A global
              challenge in the new millenium", World Summit on the
              Information Society, 2003, at,
              accessed 12 January 2004. , Dec 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Jose Saldana (editor)
   University of Zaragoza
   Dpt. IEC Ada Byron Building
   Zaragoza  50018

   Phone: +34 976 762 698

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft       Alternative Network Deployments          March 2016

   Andres Arcia-Moret
   University of Cambridge
   15 JJ Thomson Avenue
   Cambridge  FE04
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44 (0) 1223 763610

   Bart Braem
   Gaston Crommenlaan 8 (bus 102)
   Gent  9050

   Phone: +32 3 265 38 64

   Ermanno Pietrosemoli
   The Abdus Salam ICTP
   Via Beirut 7
   Trieste  34151

   Phone: +39 040 2240 471

   Arjuna Sathiaseelan
   University of Cambridge
   15 JJ Thomson Avenue
   Cambridge  CB30FD
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44 (0)1223 763781

   Marco Zennaro
   The Abdus Salam ICTP
   Strada Costiera 11
   Trieste  34100

   Phone: +39 040 2240 406

Saldana, et al.        Expires September 19, 2016              [Page 34]