wdiff rfc7962.original rfc7962.txt

Global Access to the
Internet for All Research Task Force (IRTF) J. Saldana, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7962 University of Zaragoza
Intended status:
Category: Informational A. Arcia-Moret
Expires: January 18, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 University of Cambridge
B. Braem
iMinds
E. Pietrosemoli
The Abdus Salam ICTP
A. Sathiaseelan
University of Cambridge
M. Zennaro
The Abdus Salam ICTP
July 17,
August 2016

Alternative Network Deployments:
Taxonomy, characterization,
technologies Characterization, Technologies, and architectures
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-08 Architectures

Abstract

This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative Network
Deployments" that emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing
Internet connectivity to people or for providing a local communication
infrastructure to serve various complementary needs and objectives.
They employ architectures and topologies different from those of
mainstream networks, networks and rely on alternative governance and business
models.

The document also surveys the technologies deployed in these
networks, and their differing architectural characteristics,
including a set of definitions and shared properties.

The classification considers models such as Community Networks,
Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), networks owned by
individuals but leased out to network operators who use them as a
low-cost medium to reach the underserved population, networks that
provide connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users users, and
rural utility cooperatives.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF). The IRTF publishes the
provisions results of BCP 78 Internet-related research
and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents development activities. These results might not be suitable for
deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Global Access
to the Internet for All Research Group of the Internet Engineering Research Task
Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not
a maximum candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of six months RFC
5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 January 18, 2017.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7962.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. 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 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Alternative Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terms used Used in this document This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Scenarios where Where Alternative Networks are deployed Are Deployed . . . . . . 7 6
3.1. Urban vs. Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Topology patterns followed Patterns Followed by Alternative Networks . . . 9
4. Classification criteria Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Entity behind the network Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9
4.2. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Governance and sustainability model Sustainability Model . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Technologies employed Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11
4.5. Typical scenarios Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Classification of Alternative Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12
5.1. Community Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12
5.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs Providers (WISPs) . . . . . . . 15 14
5.3. Shared infrastructure model Infrastructure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15
5.4. Crowdshared approaches, led Approaches Led by the users Users and third party
stakeholders Third-Party
Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 17
5.5. Rural utility cooperatives Utility Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19
5.6. Testbeds for research purposes Research Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20
6. Technologies employed Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20
6.1. Wired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20
6.2. Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1. Media Access Control (MAC) Protocols for Wireless
Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 21
6.2.1.1. 802.11 (Wi-Fi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 21
6.2.1.2. Mobile technologies Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 22
6.2.1.3. Dynamic Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 22
7. Upper layers Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 24
7.1. Layer 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 24
7.1.1. IP addressing Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 24
7.1.2. Routing protocols Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 24
7.1.2.1. Traditional routing protocols Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1.2.2. Mesh routing protocols Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 25
7.2. Transport layer Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 25
7.2.1. Traffic Management when sharing network resources When Sharing Network Resources . . 26 25
7.3. Services provided Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 26
7.3.1. Use of VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 27
7.3.2. Other facilities Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . 27
7.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . .
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Contributors . . . . . . . 30
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 40

1. Introduction

One of the aims of the Global Access to the Internet for All (GAIA)
IRTF research group Research Group is "to document and share deployment experiences
and research results to the wider community through scholarly
publications, white papers, Informational and Experimental RFCs,
etc." [GAIA]. In line with this objective, this document proposes a
classification of "Alternative Network Deployments". This term
includes a set of network access models that have emerged in the last
decade with the aim of providing Internet connections, following
topological, architectural, governance governance, and business models that
differ from the so-called "mainstream" ones, where a company deploys
the infrastructure connecting the users, who pay a subscription fee
to be connected and make use of it.

Several initiatives throughout the world have built these large scale large-scale
networks, using predominantly wireless technologies (including long
distance links) due to the reduced cost of using unlicensed spectrum.
Wired technologies such as fiber are also used in some of these
networks.

The classification considers several types of alternate deployments:
Community Networks are self-organized networks wholly owned by the
community; networks acting as Wireless Internet Service Providers
(WISPs); networks owned by individuals but leased out to network
operators who use such networks as a low cost low-cost medium to reach the
underserved population; networks that provide connectivity by sharing
wireless resources of the users; and finally there are some rural
utility cooperatives also connecting their members to the Internet.

The emergence of these networks has been motivated by a variety of
factors such as the lack of wired and cellular infrastructures in
rural/remote areas [Pietrosemoli]. In some cases, alternative
networks 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 technologies, and approaches employed in these networks,
including some real examples. References describing each kind of
network are also provided.

1.1. Mainstream networks Networks

In this document, we will use the term "mainstream networks" to
denote those networks sharing these characteristics:

o Regarding scale, they are usually large networks spanning entire
regions.

o Top-down control of the network and centralized approach.

o They require a substantial investment in infrastructure.

o Users in mainstream networks do not participate in the network
design, deployment, operation, governance governance, and maintenance.

o Ownership of the network is never vested in the users themselves.

1.2. Alternative Networks

The term "Alternative Network" proposed in this document refers to
the networks that do not share the characteristics of "mainstream
network deployments". Therefore, they may share some of the
following characteristics:

o Relatively small scale (i.e. (i.e., not spanning entire regions).

o Administration may not follow a centralized approach.

o They may require a reduced investment in infrastructure, which may
be shared by the users, users and commercial and non-commercial entities.

o Users in alternative networks Alternative Networks may participate in the network
design, deployment, operation operation, and maintenance.

o Ownership of the network is often vested in the users.

2. Terms used Used in this document This Document

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

o "Global north" and "global south". Although there is no consensus
on the terms to be used when talking about the different
development level of countries, we will employ the term "global
south" to refer to nations with a relatively lower standard of
living. This distinction is normally intended to reflect basic
economic country conditions. In common practice, Japan in Asia,
Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and
New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed"
regions or areas [UN], so we will employ the term "global north"
when talking about them.

o The "Digital Divide". The following dimensions are considered to
be meaningful when measuring the digital development state of a
country: infrastructures (availability and affordability), the
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector (human
capital and technological industry), digital literacy, legal and
regulatory framework and, framework, and content and services. A lack of digital
development in one or more of these dimensions is what has been
referred as the "Digital Divide" [Norris]. It should be noted
that this "Divide" is not only present between different
countries, countries
but between zones of the same country, despite its degree of
development.

o "Urban" and "rural" zones. There is no single definition of
"rural" or "urban", as each country and various international
organizations define these terms differently, mainly based on the
number of inhabitants, the population density density, and the distance
between houses [UNStats]. For networking purposes, the primary
distinction is likely the average distance between customers,
typically measured by population density, as well as the distance
to the nearest Internet point-of-presence, i.e., the distance to
be covered by "middle mile" or back haul backhaul connectivity. Some
regions with low average population density may cluster almost all
inhabitants into a small number of relatively-dense relatively dense small towns,
for example, while residents may be dispersed more evenly in
others.

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

o Provision is the act of making an asset available for sale. In
this document document, we will mainly use it as the act of making a
network service available to the inhabitants of a zone.

o Underserved area. Area in which the telecommunication market
permanently fails to provide the information and communications
services demanded by the population.

o "Free Networks" [FNF]. A definition of Free Network is proposed
by the Free Network Foundation (see https://thefnf.org) 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
forms."

o The principles of Free, Open open, and Neutral Networks neutral networks. Their principles have also been
summarized [Baig] this way: way [Baig]:

* You have the freedom to use the network for any purpose as long
as you do not harm the operation of the network itself, the
rights of other users, or the principles of neutrality that
allow contents and services to flow without deliberate
interference.

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

* You have the right to offer services and content to the network
on your own terms.

* You have the right to join the network, and the responsibility
to extend this set of rights to anyone according to these same
terms.

3. Scenarios where Where Alternative Networks are deployed Are Deployed

Different studies have reported that as much as 60% of the people on
the planet do not have Internet connectivity [Sprague], [Sprague]
[InternetStats]. In addition, those unconnected are unevenly
distributed: only 31 percent 31% of the population in "global south" countries
had access in 2014, against 80 percent 80% in "global north" countries
[WorldBank2016]. This is one of the reasons behind the inclusion of
the objective of providing to "significantly increase access to ICT information and
communications technology and strive to provide universal and
affordable access to the Internet in LDCs (Less Developed Countries) least developed countries by
2020," as one of the targets in the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) [SDG], considered as a part of "Goal 9. Build resilient
infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization
and foster innovation."

For the purpose of this document, a distinction between "global
north" and "global south" zones is made, highlighting the factors
related to ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), ICT, which can be quantified in terms of:

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

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

o The instability and/or lack of power supply.

o The scarcity of qualified staff.

o The existence of a policy and regulatory framework that hinders
the development of these models in favor of state monopolies or
incumbents.

In this context, the World Summit of the Information Society [WSIS]
aimed at achieving "a people-centred, inclusive and development-
oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access,
utilize and share information and knowledge. Therefore, enabling
individuals, communities and people to achieve their full potential
in promoting their sustainable development and improving their
quality of life". It also called upon "governments, private sector,
civil society and international organizations" to actively engage to
work towards the bridging of the digital divide.

Some Alternative Networks have been deployed in underserved areas,
where citizens may be compelled to take a more active part in the
design and implementation of ICT solutions. However, Alternative
Networks (e.g. (e.g., [Baig]) are also present in some "global north"
countries, being built as an alternative to commercial ones managed
by mainstream network operators.

The consolidation of a number of mature Alternative Networks (e.g. (e.g.,
Community Networks) sets a precedent for civil society members to
become more active in the search for alternatives to provide
themselves with affordable access. Furthermore, Alternative Networks
could contribute to bridge the digital divide by increasing human
capital and promoting the creation of localised localized content and services.

3.1. Urban vs. Rural Areas

The differences presented in the previous section are not only
present between countries, but within them too. This is especially
the case for rural inhabitants, who represent approximately 55% of
the world's population [IFAD2011], with 78% of them in "global south"
countries [ITU2011]. According to the World Bank, adoption gaps
"between rural and urban populations are falling for mobile phones
but increasing for the Internet" internet" [WorldBank2016].

Although it is impossible to generalize among them, there exist some
common features in rural areas that have prevented incumbent
operators from providing access and that, at the same time, challenge
the deployment of alternative infrastructures [Brewer], [Nungu], [Brewer] [Nungu]
[Simo_c]. For example, a high network latency was reported in
[Johnson_b], which could be in the order of seconds during some
hours.

These challenges include:

o Low per capita income, as the local economy is mainly based on
subsistence agriculture, farming farming, and fishing.

o Scarcity or absence of basic infrastructures, such as electricity,
water
water, and access roads.

o Low population density and distance (spatial or effective) between
population clusters.

o Underdeveloped social services, such as healthcare and education.

o Lack of adequately educated and trained technicians, and high
potential for those (few) trained to leave the community
incentivized by better opportunities, higher salaries salaries, or the
possibility to start of starting their own companies [McMahon].

o High cost of Internet access [Mathee].

o Harsh environments leading to failure in electronic communication
devices [Johnson_a], which reduces the reliability of the network.

Some of these factors challenge the stability of Alternative Networks
and the services they provide: scarcity of spectrum, scale, and
heterogeneity of devices. However, the proliferation of Alternative
Networks [Baig] together with the raising of low-cost, low-
consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices, devices have
allowed and simplified the deployment and maintenance of alternative
infrastructures in rural areas.

3.2. Topology patterns followed Patterns Followed by Alternative Networks

Alternative Networks, considered self-managed and self-sustained,
follow different topology patterns [Vega_a]. Generally, these
networks grow spontaneously and organically, that is, the network
grows without specific planning and deployment strategy and the
routing core of the network tends to fit a power law distribution.
Moreover, these networks are composed of a high number of
heterogeneous devices with the common objective of freely connecting
and increasing the network coverage and the reliability. Although
these characteristics increase the entropy (e.g., by increasing the
number of routing protocols), they have resulted in an inexpensive
solution to effectively increase the network size. One such example
is Guifi.net [Vega_a] [Vega_a], which has had 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 and/or wireless mesh networks, which in turn conveys convey
the Internet connection to relevant organizations or institutions.
In contrast, in urban areas, users tend to share and require mobile
access. Since these areas are also likely to be covered by
commercial ISPs, the provision of wireless access by Virtual
Operators virtual
operators like [Fon] may constitute a way to extend the user capacity
to the network. Other proposals like Virtual "Virtual Public Networks Networks"
[Sathiaseelan_a] can also extend the service.

4. Classification criteria Criteria

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

4.1. Entity behind the network Network

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

o A community of users.

o A public stakeholder.

o A private company.

o Supporters of a crowdshared approach.

o A community that already owns the infrastructure and shares it
with an operator, who, in turn, may also use it for backhauling
purposes.

o A research or academic entity.

The above actors may play different roles in the design, financing,
deployment, governance, and promotion of an alternative network. Alternative Network. For
example, each of the members of a community network Community Network maintains the
ownership over the equipment they have contributed, whereas in others
there is a single entity, e.g., a private company who owns the
equipment, or at least a part of it.

4.2. Purpose

Alternative Networks can be classified according to their purpose and
the benefits they bring compared to mainstream solutions, regarding
economic, technological, social social, or political objectives. These
benefits could be enjoyed mostly by the actors involved (e.g.,
lowering costs or gaining technical expertise) or by the local
community (e.g., Internet access in underserved areas) or by the
society as a whole (e.g., network neutrality).

The benefits provided by Alternative Networks include, but are not
limited to:

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

o Providing affordable Internet access for all.

o Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end
user, or both).

o Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional
carrier-based financing).

o Reducing on-going ongoing operational costs (such as backhaul or network
administration).

o Leveraging expertise, expertise and having a place for experimentation and
teaching.

o Reducing hurdles to adoption (e.g., digital literacy, literacy in
general, and relevance).

o Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and
other extreme situations.

o Community building, social cohesion cohesion, and quality of life
improvement.

o Experimentation with alternative governance and ownership models
for treating network infrastructures as a commons.

o Raising awareness of political debates around issues like network
neutrality, knowledge sharing, access to resources, and more.

Note that the different purposes of alternative networks Alternative Networks can be more
or less explicitly stated and they could also evolve over time based
on the internal dynamics and external events. For example, the
Redhook WiFi Red
Hook WIFI network in Brooklyn [Redhook] started as a community
network Community
Network focusing more on local applications and community building
[TidePools]
[TidePools], but it became widely known when it played a key role as
an alternative service available during the Sandy storm [Tech]
[NYTimes].

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

4.3. Governance and sustainability model Sustainability Model

Different governance models are present in Alternative Networks.
They may range from some open and horizontal models, with an active
participation of the users (e.g. (e.g., Community Networks) to a more
centralized model, where a single authority (e.g. (e.g., a company, company or a
public stakeholder) plans and manages the network, even if it is
(total or partially) owned by a community.

Regarding sustainability, some networks grow "organically," "organically" as a
result of the new users who join and extend the network, contributing
their own hardware. In some other cases, the existence of previous
infrastructure (owned by the community or the users) may lower the
capital expenditures of an operator, who can therefore provide the
service with better economic conditions.

4.4. Technologies employed Employed

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

o Wi-Fi modified for long distances (WiLD). It Wi-Fi-based Long Distance (WiLD) networks. These can work with
either
CSMA/CA Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance
(CSMA/CA) or an alternative TDMA MAC [Simo_b].

o Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA). (TDMA)
Media Access Control (MAC) [Simo_b].

o TDMA. It can be combined with a Wi-Fi protocol, in a non-standard
way [airMAX]. This configuration allows each client to send and
receive data using pre-designated timeslots.

o 802.16-compliant (WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
(WiMax)) [IEEE.802.16] systems over non-
licensed non-licensed bands.

o Dynamic Spectrum Solutions (e.g. (e.g., based on the use of TV white
spaces), a 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] [IEEE.802.11AF] or 802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011]. [IEEE.802.22].

o Satellite solutions can also be employed to give coverage to wide
areas, as proposed in the RIFE project (https://rife-project.eu/).

o Low-cost optical fiber systems are also used to connect households
in different places.

4.5. Typical scenarios Scenarios

The scenarios where Alternative Networks are usually deployed can be
classified as:

o Urban / Rural Urban/rural areas.

o "Global north" / "Global "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 that feed into the
incentives as well as the technological challenges.

At the beginning of each subsection, a table is presented including a
classification of each network according to the criteria listed in
the "Classification criteria" Criteria" subsection. Real examples of each kind
of Alternative Network are cited.

Table 1: Characteristics Summary for Community Networks' characteristics summary Networks

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

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

o Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership
of the network itself is non-centralized and open. Different
degrees of centralization can be found in Community Networks. In
some of them, a shared platform (e.g. (e.g., a web site) website) may exist where
minimum coordination is performed. Community members with the
right permissions have an obvious and direct form of
organizational control over the overall organization of the
network (e.g. (e.g., IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community
(not just their own participation in the network).

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

Hardware and software used in Community Networks can be very diverse
and customized, even inside one network. A Community Network can
have both wired and wireless links. Multiple routing protocols or
network topology management systems may coexist in the network.

These networks grow organically, since they are formed by the
aggregation of nodes belonging to different users. A minimal
governance infrastructure is required in order to coordinate IP
addressing, routing, etc. Several examples of Community Networks are
described in [Braem]. A technological analysis of a community
network Community
Network is presented in [Vega_b], focused which focuses on technological
network diversity, topology characteristics, the evolution of the
network over time, robustness and reliability, and networking service
availability.

These networks follow a participatory administration model, which has
been shown to be effective in connecting geographically dispersed
people, thus enhancing and extending digital Internet rights.

Users adding new infrastructure (i.e. (i.e., extensibility) can be used to
formulate another definition: A Community Network is a network in
which any participant in the system may add link segments to the
network in such a way that the new segments can support multiple
nodes and adopt the same overall characteristics as those of the
joined network, including the capacity to further extend the network.
Once these link segments are joined to the network, there is no
longer a meaningful distinction between the previous and the new
extent of the network. The term "participant" refers to an
individual, who may become the user, provider provider, and manager of the
network at the same time.

In Community Networks, profit can only be made by offering services
and not simply by supplying the infrastructure, because the
infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (mainstream Internet
Service Providers base their business on the control of the
infrastructure). In Community Networks, everybody usually keeps the
ownership of what he/she has contributed, contributed or leaves the stewardship of
the equipment to the network as a whole, whole (the commons), even loosing
track of the ownership of a particular equipment itself, in favor of
the community.

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

5.2. Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs

+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+ Providers (WISPs)
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Entity behind | company |
| the network | |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Purpose | to serve underserved areas; to reduce capital |
| | expenditures in Internet access; and to provide |
| | additional sources of capital |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Governance and | operated by a company that provides the |
| sustainability | equipment; centralized administration |
| model | |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wireless e.g. [IEEE.802-11-2012], wireless, e.g., [IEEE.802.11] and [IEEE.802.16] |
| employed | [IEEE.802-16.2008], and unlicensed frequencies |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Typical | rural (urban deployments also exist) |
| scenarios | |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+

Table 2: WISPs' characteristics summary Characteristics Summary for WISPs

WISPs are commercially-operated commercially operated wireless Internet networks that
provide Internet and/or Voice Over over Internet (VoIP) services. They
are most common in areas not covered by mainstream telcos telecommunications
companies or ISPs. WISPs mostly use wireless point-to-multipoint
links using unlicensed spectrum but often must resort to licensed
frequencies. Use of licensed frequencies is common in regions where
unlicensed spectrum is either perceived to be crowded, crowded or too
unreliable to offer commercial services, or where unlicensed spectrum
faces regulatory barriers impeding its use.

Most WISPs are operated by local companies responding to a perceived
market gap. There is a small but growing number of WISPs, such as
[Airjaldi] in India, that have expanded from local service into
multiple locations.

Since 2006, the deployment of cloud-managed WISPs has been possible
with hardware from companies such as [Meraki] and later [OpenMesh]
and others. Until recently, however, most of these services have
been aimed at "global north" markets. In 2014 2014, a cloud-managed WISP
service aimed at "global south" markets was launched [Everylayer].

Table 3: Characteristics Summary for Shared infrastructure characteristics summary Infrastructure

In mainstream networks, the operator usually owns the
telecommunications infrastructure required for the service, service or
sometimes rents infrastructure to/from other companies. The problem
arises in large areas with low population density, in which neither
the operator nor the other companies have deployed infrastructure and
such deployments are not likely to happen due to the low potential
return on investment.

When users already own deployed infrastructure, either individually
or as a community, sharing that infrastructure with an operator can
benefit both parties and is a solution that has been deployed in some
areas. For the operator, this provides a significant reduction in
the initial investment needed to provide services in small rural
localities because capital expenditure is only associated with the
access network. Renting capacity in the users' network for
backhauling only requires an increment in the operating expenditure.
This approach also benefits the users in two ways: they obtain
improved access to telecommunications services that would not be
accessible otherwise, and they can derive some income from the
operator that helps to offset the network's operating costs,
particularly for network maintenance.

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. 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. (i.e., villages), where the number of
simultaneous users and the servicing area are small enough to use
low-cost femtocells. Also, the amount of traffic produced by these
cells can be easily transported by most community broadband rural
networks.

Some real examples can be referenced in the TUCAN3G project, which
deployed demonstrator networks in two regions in the Amazon forest in
Peru [Simo_d]. In these networks [Simo_a], the operator and several
rural communities cooperated to provide services through rural
networks built up with WiLD links [WiLD]. In these cases, the
networks belong belonged to the public health authorities and were deployed
with funds come that came from international cooperation for telemedicine
purposes. Publications that justify the feasibility of this approach
can also be found on that website.

5.4. Crowdshared approaches, led Approaches Led by the users Users and third party
stakeholders Third-Party
Stakeholders

Table 4: Characteristics Summary for Crowdshared approaches characteristics summary Approaches
These networks can be defined as a set of nodes whose owners share
common interests (e.g. (e.g., sharing connectivity; resources; and
peripherals) regardless of their physical location. They conform to
the following approach: the home router creates two wireless networks: 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,
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 city
councils (e.g., [Heer]). The "openwireless movement"
(https://openwireless.org/) also promotes the sharing of private
wireless networks.

Some companies [Fon] also promote the use of Wi-Fi routers with dual
access: a Wi-Fi network for the user, user and a shared one. Adequate AAA
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) policies are
implemented, so people can join the network in different ways: they
can buy a router, so they can share their connection and in
turn 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. 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,
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 crowdshared network are summarized below:

o Interest: a A parameter capable of providing a measure (cost) of the
attractiveness of a node in a specific location, at a specific
instance in time.

o Resources: A physical or virtual element of a global system. For
instance, bandwidth; energy; data; and devices.

o The owner: End users who sign up for the service and share their
network capacity. As a counterpart, they can access another
owners'
owner's home network capacity for free. The owner can be an end
user or an entity (e.g. (e.g., operator; virtual mobile network
operator; or municipality) that is to be made responsible for any
actions concerning his/her device.

o The user: a A legal entity or an individual using or requesting a
publicly available electronic communications' communications service for private
or business purposes, without necessarily having subscribed to
such service.

o The Virtual Network Operator (VNO): VNO: An entity that acts in some aspects as a network
coordinator. It may provide services such as initial
authentication or registration, and registration and, eventually, trust relationship
storage. A VNO is not an ISP given that it does not provide
Internet access (e.g. infrastructure; (e.g., infrastructure or naming). A VNO is not an
Application Service Provider (ASP) either since it does not
provide user services. Virtual Operators VNOs may also be stakeholders with socio-environmental socio-
environmental objectives. They can be local governments, grass-roots
grassroots user communities, charities, or even content operators,
smart grid operators, etc. They are the ones who actually run the
service.

o Network operators, who operators: They have a financial incentive to lease out
unused capacity [Sathiaseelan_b] at a lower cost to the VNOs.

VNOs pay the sharers and the network operators, thus creating an
incentive structure for all the actors: the end users get money for
sharing their network, and the network operators are paid by the
VNOs, who in turn accomplish their socio-environmental role.

5.5. Rural utility cooperatives

+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ Utility Cooperatives

+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Entity behind the | rural utility cooperative |
| network | |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Purpose | to serve underserved areas; areas and to reduce |
| | capital expenditures in Internet access |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Governance and | the cooperative partners with an ISP who |
| sustainability model | manages the network |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| model | |
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Technologies | wired (fiber) and wireless |
| employed | |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Typical scenarios | rural |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

Table 5: Characteristics Summary for Rural utility cooperatives' characteristics summary Utility Cooperatives

A utility cooperative is a type of cooperative that delivers a public
utility to its members. For example, in the United States, rural
electric cooperatives have provided electric service starting in the
1930s, especially in areas where investor-owned utility would not
provide service, believing there would be insufficient revenue to
justify the capital expenditures required. Similarly, in many
regions with low population density, traditional Internet services
providers Service
Providers such as telephone companies or cable TV companies are
either not providing service at all or only offer offering low-speed DSL
service. Some rural electric cooperatives started installing fiber
optic lines to run their smart grid applications, but they found they
could provide fiber-based broadband to their members at little
additional cost [Cash]. In some of these cases, rural electric
cooperatives have partnered with local ISPs to provide Internet
connection to their members [Carlson]. More information about these
utilities and their management can be found in [NewMexico] and
[Mitchell].

5.6. Testbeds for research purposes Research Purposes

Table 6: Testbeds' characteristics summary Characteristics Summary for Testbeds

In some cases, the initiative to start the network is not from the
community,
community but from a research entity (e.g. (e.g., a university), with the
aim of using it for research purposes [Samanta], [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]. (for example, see [Rey]).

6. Technologies employed Employed

6.1. Wired

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

6.2. Wireless

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

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

Different protocols for Media Access Control, MAC, which also include physical layer (PHY)
recommendations, are widely used in Alternative Network Deployments.
Wireless standards ensure interoperability and usability to those who
design, deploy deploy, and manage wireless networks. In addition, they then
ensure low-cost the low cost of equipment due to economies of scale and mass
production.

The standards used in the vast majority of Alternative Networks come
from the IEEE Standard Association's IEEE 802 Working Group.
Standards developed by other international entities can also be used,
such as e.g. as, e.g., the European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI).

6.2.1.1. 802.11 (Wi-Fi)

The standard we are most interested in is 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, as it
defines the protocol for Wireless LAN. It is also known as "Wi-Fi".
The original release (a/b) was issued in 1999 and allowed for rates
up to 54 Mbit/s. The latest release (802.11ac) approved in 2013
reaches up to 866.7 Mbit/s. In 2012, the IEEE issued the 802.11-2012
Standard an 802.11
standard that consolidates consolidated all the previous amendments. amendments [IEEE.802.11].
The document is freely downloadable from the IEEE Standards
Association [IEEE].

The MAC protocol in 802.11 is called CSMA/CA (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; packet and if a certain
waiting time is exceeded, the packet is retransmitted. This behavior
makes necessary the adaptation of several MAC parameters when 802.11
is used in long links [Simo_b]. Even with this adaptation, distance
has a significant negative impact on performance. For this reason,
many vendors implement alternative medium access techniques that are
offered alongside the standard CSMA/CA in their outdoor 802.11
products. These alternative proprietary MAC protocols usually employ
some type of TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access). Low cost TDMA. Low-cost equipment using these techniques can
offer high throughput at distances above 100 kilometers.

Different specifications of 802.11 operate in different frequency
bands. 802.11b/g/n operates in 2.4 GHz, but 802.11a/n/ac operates in
5GHz.
5 GHz. This fact is used in some Community Networks in order to
separate ordinary and "backbone" nodes:

o Typical routers running mesh firmware in homes, offices, and
public spaces operate at 2.4 GHz.

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

6.2.1.2. Mobile technologies

GSM (Global Technologies

Global System for Mobile Communications), Communications (GSM), from ETSI, has also
been used in Alternative Networks as a Layer 2 option, as explained
in [Mexican], [Village], and [Heimerl]. Open source GSM code
projects such as OpenBTS (http://openbts.org) or OpenBSC
(http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac/) have created an ecosystem with the
participation of several companies as e.g. such as, e.g., [Rangenetworks],
[Endaga], and [YateBTS]. This enables deployments of voice, SMS SMS, and
Internet services over alternative networks Alternative Networks with an IP-based
backhaul.

Internet navigation is usually restricted to relatively low bit rates
(see e.g.
(see, e.g., [Osmocom]). However, leveraging on the evolution of 3rd
Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards, a trend can be
observed towards the integration of 4G [Spectrum], [Spectrum] [YateBTS] or 5G
[Openair] functionalities, with significant increase of achievable
bit rates.

Depending on factors such as the allocated frequency band, the
adoption of licensed spectrum can have advantages over the eventually
higher frequencies used for Wi-Fi, in terms of signal propagation
and, consequently, coverage. Other factors favorable to 3GPP
technologies, especially GSM, are the low cost and energy consumption
of handsets, which facilitate its use by low-income communities.

6.2.1.3. Dynamic Spectrum

Some Alternative Networks make use of TV White Spaces [Lysko] - -- a
set of UHF and VHF television frequencies that can be utilized by
secondary users in locations where they are unused by licensed
primary users such as television broadcasters. Equipment that makes
use of TV White Spaces is required to detect the presence of existing
unused TV channels by means of a spectrum database and/or spectrum
sensing in order to ensure that no harmful interference is caused to
primary users. In order to smartly allocate interference-free
channels to the devices, cognitive radios are used which that are able to
modify their frequency, power 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 White Space communication: (i) the 802.11af
standard [IEEE.802-11AF.2013] - [IEEE.802.11AF] -- an adaptation of the 802.11 standard for
TV white space White Space bands -- and (ii) the IEEE 802.22 standard
[IEEE.802-22.2011]
[IEEE.802.22] for long-range rural communication.

6.2.1.3.1. 802.11af

802.11af [IEEE.802-11AF.2013] [IEEE.802.11AF] is a modified version of the 802.11 standard
operating in TV White Space bands using Cognitive Radios cognitive radios to avoid
interference with primary users. The standard is often referred to
as White-Fi "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 streams, and very high rate 256-QAM
modulation high-rate 256 QAM
(Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) but with improved in-building
penetration and outdoor coverage. The maximum data rate achievable
is 426.7 Mbps Mbit/s for countries with 6/7 MHz channels and 568.9 Mbps Mbit/s
for countries with 8 MHz channels. Coverage is typically limited to
1 km although longer range at lower throughput and using high gain
antennas will be possible.

Devices are designated as enabling stations (Access Points) or
dependent stations (clients). Enabling stations are authorized to
control the operation of a dependent station and securely access a
geolocation database. Once the enabling station has received a list
of available white space channels White Space channels, it can announce a chosen channel
to the dependent stations for them to communicate with the enabling
station. 802.11af also makes use of a registered location server - -- a
local database that organizes the geographic location and operating
parameters of all enabling stations.

6.2.1.3.2. 802.22

802.22 [IEEE.802-22.2011] [IEEE.802.22] is a standard developed specifically for
long long-
range rural communications in TV white space White Space frequencies and was
first approved in July 2011. The standard is similar to the 802.16
(WiMax) [IEEE.802-16.2008] [IEEE.802.16] standard with an added cognitive radio ability.

The maximum throughput of 802.22 is 22.6 Mbps Mbit/s for a single 8 MHz
channel using 64-QAM modulation. The achievable range using the
default MAC scheme is 30 km, however 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) (CPE) 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 White Space
channel with the CPE devices. The standard also includes a co-
existence
coexistence mechanism that uses beacons to make other 802.22 base
stations aware of the presence of a base station that is not part of
the same network.

7. Upper layers Layers

7.1. Layer 3

7.1.1. IP addressing Addressing

Most Community Networks use private IPv4 address ranges, as defined
by [RFC1918]. The motivation for this was the lower cost and the
simplified IP allocation because of the large available address
ranges.

Most known Alternative Networks started in or around the year 2000.
IPv6 was fully specified by then, but almost all Alternative Networks
still use IPv4. A survey [Avonts] indicated that IPv6 rollout
presented a challenge to Community Networks. However, some of them
have already adopted it it, such as e.g. ninux.org.

7.1.2. Routing protocols Protocols

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

7.1.2.1. Traditional routing protocols Routing Protocols

The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as defined by [RFC4271] [RFC4271], is used
by a number of Community Networks, 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].

7.1.2.2. Mesh routing protocols Routing Protocols

A large number of Alternative Networks use customized versions of the
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) Protocol [RFC3626]. The
[olsr.org] open
source project [OLSR] has extended the protocol with the Expected
Transmission Count metric (ETX) metric [Couto] and other features, features for its
use in Alternative Networks, especially wireless ones. A new version
of the protocol, named OLSRv2 [RFC7181] [RFC7181], is becoming used in some community networks
Community Networks [Barz].

B.A.T.M.A.N.

Better Approach To Mobile Ad Hoc Networking (B.A.T.M.A.N.) Advanced
[Seither] is a layer-2 Layer 2 routing protocol, which creates a bridged
network and allows seamless roaming of clients between wireless
nodes.

Some networks also run the BMX6 BatMan-eXperimental Version 6 (BMX6)
protocol [Neumann_a], which is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the
social structure of Alternative Networks.

Babel [RFC6126] is a layer-3 Layer 3 loop-avoiding distance-vector routing
protocol that is robust and efficient both in wired and wireless mesh
networks.

In [Neumann_b] [Neumann_b], a study of three proactive mesh routing protocols
(BMX6, OLSR, and Babel) is presented, in terms of scalability,
performance, and stability.

7.2. Transport layer Layer

7.2.1. Traffic Management when sharing network resources When Sharing Network Resources

When network resources are shared (as e.g. (as, e.g., in the networks
explained in Section 5.4), special care has to be taken with the
management of the traffic at upper layers. From a crowdshared
perspective, and considering just regular TCP connections during the
critical sharing time, the Access Point offering the service is
likely to be the bottleneck of the connection.

This is the main concern of sharers, having several implications. In
some cases, an adequate Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism that
implements a Lower-than-best-effort Less-than-Best-Effort (LBE) [RFC6297] policy for the
user is used to protect the sharer. Achieving LBE behavior requires
the appropriate tuning of the well known well-known mechanisms such as Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168], or Random Early Detection (RED) [RFC2309],
[RFC7567], or other more recent AQM mechanisms that aid low latency
such as Controlled Delay (CoDel) [CoDel] and [I-D.ietf-aqm-codel] PIE (Proportional Proportional Integral
controller Enhanced) [I-D.ietf-aqm-pie] that aid low
latency. Enhanced (PIE) [PIE] design.

7.3. Services provided Provided

This section provides an overview of the services provided by the
network. Many Alternative Networks can be considered Autonomous
Systems, being (or aspiring to be) a part of the Internet.

The services provided can include, but are not limited to:

o Web browsing.

o e-mail. Email.

o Remote desktop (e.g. (e.g., using my home computer and my Internet
connection when I am away).

o FTP file sharing (e.g. (e.g., distribution of software and media).

o VoIP (e.g. (e.g., with SIP).

o P2P Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing.

o Public video cameras.

o DNS.

o Online games game servers.

o Jabber instant messaging.

o Weather stations.

o Network monitoring.

o Videoconferencing / streaming. Videoconferencing/streaming.

o Radio streaming.

o Message / Bulletin Message/bulletin board.

o Local cloud storage services.

Due to bandwidth limitations, some services (file sharing, VoIP,
etc.) may not be allowed in some Alternative Networks. In some of
these cases, a number of federated proxies provide web browsing web-browsing
service for the users.

Some specialized services have been specifically developed for
Alternative Networks:

o Inter-network peering/VPNs (e.g. https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-
VPN).
(e.g., https://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN).

o Community oriented Community-oriented portals (e.g. (e.g., http://tidepools.co/).

o Network monitoring/deployment/maintenance platforms.

o VoIP sharing between networks, allowing cheap calls between
countries.

o Sensor networks and citizen science built by adding sensors to
devices.

o Community radio/TV stations.

Other services (e.g. Local (e.g., local wikis as https://localwiki.org used in community portals) portals; see
https://localwiki.org) can also provide useful information when
supplied through an alternative network, Alternative Network, although they were not
specifically created for them.

7.3.1. Use of VPNs

Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing
Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with
Internet access.

Many community networks Community Networks also use VPNs to connect multiple disjoint
parts of their networks together. In some others, every node
establishes a VPN tunnel as well.

7.3.2. Other facilities Facilities

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

8. Acknowledgements

This work has

7.4. Security Considerations

No security issues have 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 identified for this document wish to thank the
following individuals who have participated in the drafting, review, document.

8. Informative References

[Airjaldi]
AirJaldi Networks, "Airjaldi Service", 2015,
<https://airjaldi.com/>.

[airMAX] Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., "airMAX", 2016,
<https://www.ubnt.com/broadband/>.

[Avonts] Avonts, J., Braem, B., and discussion C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire
based Examination of this memo: Paul M. Aoki, Roger Baig, Jaume
Barcelo, Steven G. Huter, Rohan Mahy, Rute Sofia, Dirk Trossen,
Aldebaro Klautau, Vesna Manojlovic, Mitar Milutinovic, Henning
Schulzrinne, Panayotis Antoniadis.

A special thanks to the GAIA Working Group chairs Mat Ford Community Networks", IEEE 9th
International Conference on Wireless and Arjuna
Sathiaseelan for their support and guidance.

9. Contributing Authors

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

Phone: +34 934016807
Email: leandro@ac.upc.edu

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

Phone: 0027219592562
Email: crey-moreno@uwc.ac.za

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

Phone: +306945406585
Email: ikomnios@ee.duth.gr

Steve Song
Network Startup Resource Center
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia
CANADA

Phone: +1 902 529 0046
Email: stevesong@nsrc.org
David Lloyd Johnson
Meraka, CSIR
15 Lower Hope St
Rosebank 7700
South Africa

Phone: +27 (0)21 658 2740
Email: djohnson@csir.co.za

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

Phone: 91 488 8428 / 7500
Email: javier.simo@urjc.es

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

[Airjaldi]
Rural Broadband (RBB) Pvt. Ltd., Airjaldi., "Airjaldi
service", Airjaldi web page, https://airjaldi.com/, 2015.

[airMAX] Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., airMAX., "airMAX", airMAX web
page, https://www.ubnt.com/broadband/, 2016.

[Avonts] Avonts, J., Braem, B., and C. Blondia, "A Questionnaire
based Examination of Community Networks", Proceedings IEEE
8th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile
Computing, Networking Mobile Computing,
Networking and Communications (WiMob) (WiMob), pp. 8-15,
DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2013.6673333, October 2013.

[Baig] Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., and L. Navarro,
"guifi.net, a crowdsourced network infrastructure held in
common", Computer Networks, vol. Vol. 90, no. Issue C, pp. 150-165,
Oct. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009,
DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009, October 2015.

[Barz] Barz, C., Fuchs, C., Kirchhoff, J., Niewiejska, J., and H.
Rogge, "OLSRv2 for Community Networks", Comput. Netw. Computer Networks,
Vol. 93,
P2 (December 2015),
324-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.022,
2015. Issue P2, pp. 324-341, December 2015,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.022>.

[Bernardi]
Bernardi, B., Buneman, P., and M. Marina, "Tegola tiered
mesh network testbed Tiered
Mesh Network Testbed in rural Rural Scotland", Proceedings of
the 2008 ACM workshop on Wireless networks and systems for
developing regions (WiNS-DR '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, regions, pp. 9-16, DOI 10.1145/1410064.1410067,
2008.

[Braem] Braem, B., Baig Vinas, R., Kaplan, A., Neumann, A., Vilata
i Balaguer, I., Tatum, B., Matson, M., Blondia, C., Barz,
C., Rogge, H., Freitag, F., Navarro, L., Bonicioli, J.,
Papathanasiou, S., and P. Escrich, "A case Case for research Research
with and on community networks", Community Networks", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review vol. Review, Vol. 43, no. Issue 3, pp. 68-73,
DOI 10.1145/2500098.2500108, July 2013.

[Brewer] Brewer, E., Demmer, M., Du, B., Ho, M., Kam, M.,
Nedevschi, S., Pal, J., Patra, R., Surana, S., and K.
Fall, "The Case for Technology in Developing Regions",
IEEE Computer vol. Society, Vol. 38, no. 6 Issue 6, pp. 25-38,
DOI 10.1109/MC.2005.204, 2005.

[Carlson] Carlson, S. and C. Mitchell, "RS Fiber: Fertile Fields for
New Rural Internet Cooperative", ILSR, Institute for Local
Self-Reliance, Self-
Reliance and Next Century Cities, https://ilsr.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/rs-fiber-report-
2016.pdf, 2016. April 2016,
<https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/
rs-fiber-report-2016.pdf>.

[Cash] Cash, C., "CO-MO'S D.I.Y. model Model for building broadband",
RE Magazine and ECT.coop, Building Broadband",
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), http://remagazine.coop/co-mo-broadband/, 2015.
November 2015, <http://remagazine.coop/co-mo-broadband/>.

[Cerda-Alabern]
Cerda-Alabern, L., "On the topology characterization of
Guifi.net", Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International
Conference
onWireless on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking
and Communications (WiMob) (WiMob), pp. 389-396,
DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379103, October 2012.

[CoDel] Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., and J. Iyengar,
"Controlled Delay Active Queue Management", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-aqm-codel-04, June 2016.

[Couto] De Couto, D., Aguayo, D., Bicket, J., and R. Morris, "A
high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless
routing", Wireless Networks, 11(4), Vol. 11, Issue 4, pp.
419-434, DOI 10.1007/s11276-005-1766-z, July 2005.

[Endaga] Tech, FierceWireless., Alleven, M., "Endaga raises $1.2M to help it bring
cellular to remote villages", FierceWireless tech
news, http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/endaga-
raises-12m-help-it-bring-cellular-remote-
villages/2014-12-03, 2014. Tech News,
December 2014, <http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/
endaga-raises-12m-help-it-bring-cellular-remote-
villages/2014-12-03>.

[Everylayer]
former
Everylayer, Inc. (formerly Volo Broadband, Everylayer., Broadband), "Everylayer",
Everylayer web page, http://www.everylayer.com/, 2015.

[FNF] The Free Network Foundation, FNF., "The Free Network
Foundation", The Free Network Foundation web
page, https://thefnf.org/, 2014.
2015, <http://www.everylayer.com/>.

[Fon] Fon Wireless Limited, Fon., "What is Fon", Fon web
page, https://corp.fon.com/en, 2014. Fon, "Fon is the Global WiFi Network", 2014,
<https://corp.fon.com/en>.

[GAIA] Internet Research Task Force, IRTF., "Charter: Global Access to
the Internet for All Research Group GAIA",
available at https://irtf.org/gaia, 2016. (GAIA)", 2016,
<https://irtf.org/gaia>.

[Heer] Heer, T., Hummen, R., Viol, N., Wirtz, H., Gotz, S., and
K. Wehrle, "Collaborative municipal Wi-Fi networks-
challenges and opportunities", 8th IEEE International
Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications
Workshops (PERCOM Workshops) Workshops), pp. 588-593,
DOI 10.1109/PERCOMW.2010.5470505, 2010.

[Heimerl] Heimerl, K., Shaddi, H., Ali, K., Brewer, E., and T.
Parikh, "The Village Base Station", "Local, sustainable, small-scale cellular
networks", In ICTD 2013, Cape Town, South Africa,
DOI 10.1145/2516604.2516616, 2013.

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

[I-D.ietf-aqm-pie]
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, Engineers (IEEE),
"IEEE Standards association", 2012.

[IEEE.802-11-2012]
"Information technology--Telecommunications Association",
<https://standards.ieee.org/>.

[IEEE.802.11]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology--
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific
requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
IEEE Standard 802.11-2012, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2012.6178212, April
2012, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.11-2012.pdf>.

[IEEE.802-11AF.2013]
"Information

[IEEE.802.11AF]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology -
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific
requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications - Amendment
5: Television White Spaces (TVWS) Operation", IEEE Standard 802.11af, Oct
2009,
802.11af-2013, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6744566, February
2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.11af-2013.pdf>.

[IEEE.802-16.2008]
"Information

[IEEE.802.16]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology -
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Broadband wireless metropolitan area networks
(MANs) - IEEE Standard for Air Interface for Broadband
Wireless Access Systems", IEEE Standard 802.16, Jun 2008, 802.16-2012,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2012.6272299, August 2012,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.16-2012.pdf>.

[IEEE.802-22.2011]
"Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -

[IEEE.802.22]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology-- Local
and metropolitan area networks - networks-- Specific requirements - 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 802.22-2011, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2011.5951707, July
2011, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.22.2-2012.pdf>. <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
opac?punumber=5951705>.

[IFAD2011]
International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD., Development (IFAD),
"Rural Poverty Report 2011, International Fund for
Agricultural Development", Ed. Roma, Italia Nov, 2011", ISBN 978-92-9072-200-7, 2011.

[InternetStats]
InternetWorldStats, IWS.,
Internet World Stats, "World Internet Users and 2015
Population Stats", Accessed
2016, http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm, 2015.
<http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm>.

[ITU2011] International Telecommunication Union, ITU., "ITU, World "World
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database", Accessed
2016, http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/, 2011. Database - 2011",
<http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/
publications/wtid.aspx>.

[Johnson_a]
Johnson, D. and K. Roux, "Building Rural Wireless
Networks: Lessons Learnt and Future Directions", WiNS-
DR'08 In
Proceedings of the ACM workshop on Wireless networks and
systems for developing regions, pp. 17-22,
DOI 10.1145/1410064.1410068, 2008.

[Johnson_b]
Johnson, D., Pejovic, V., Belding, E., and G. van Stam,
"Traffic Characterization and Internet Usage in Rural
Africa", In Proceedings of the 20th international
conference companion International
Conference Companion on World wide web Wide Web, pp. 493-502. ACM, 493-502,
DOI 10.1145/1963192.1963363, 2011.

[Lowenstedt]
Huggler, J., "Lowenstedt Villagers Built Own Fiber Optic
Network", The Telegraph, 03 Jun "German villagers set up their own broadband
network", June 2014, available at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/
germany/10871150/
German-villagers-set-up-their-own-broadband-network.html,
2014.
German-villagers-set-up-their-own-broadband-network.html>.

[Lysko] Lysko, A., Masonta, M., Mofolo, M., Mfupe, L., Montsi, L.,
Johnson, D., Mekuria, F., Ngwenya, D., Ntlatlapa, N.,
Hart, A., Harding, C., and A. Lee, "First large TV white
spaces trial in South Africa: A brief overview", In
Proceedings of the IEEE 6th international conference
International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications
and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), pp. 407-414,
DOI 10.1109/ICUMT.2014.7002136, October 2014.

[Mathee] Mathee, K., Mweemba, G., Pais, A., Stam, V., and M.
Rijken, "Bringing Internet connectivity to rural Zambia
using a collaborative approach", International Conference
on Information and Communication Technologies and
Development (ICTD 2007)
Development, pp. 1-12, 2007, DOI 10.1109/ICTD.2007.4937391,
2007.

[McMahon] McMahon, R., Gurstein, M., Beaton, B., Donnell, S., and T.
Whiteducke, "Making Information Technologies Work at the
end
End of the Road", Journal of Information Policy vol. Policy, Vol. 4,
pp. 250-269, 2014, DOI 10.5325/jinfopoli.4.2014.0250, 2014.

[Meraki] Cisco Systems, "Meraki", Meraki web page, https://www.meraki.com/, 2016. 2016, <https://www.meraki.com/>.

[Mexican] Varma, S., "Mexican "Ignored by big companies, Mexican village
creates its own mobile service", The Times of India, 27 Aug 2013. Available at
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/ August 2013,
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/
Ignored-by-big-companies-Mexican-village-creates-its-own-
mobile-service/articleshow/22094736.cms, 2013.
mobile-service/articleshow/22094736.cms>.

[Mitchell]
Mitchell, C., "Broadband at At the Speed of Light: How Three
Communities Built Next-Generation Networks", ILSR, Institute for
Local Self-Reliance. Available at
http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/
muni-bb-speed-light.pdf, 2012. Self-Reliance (ILSR), April 2012, <http://ilsr.org/
wp-content/uploads/2012/04/muni-bb-speed-light.pdf>.

[Neumann_a]
Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "An evaluation of
bmx6
BMX6 for community wireless networks", In IEEE 8th
International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing,
Networking and Communications (WiMob) (WiMob), pp. 651-658,
DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379145, 2012.

[Neumann_b]
Neumann, A., Lopez, E., and L. Navarro, "Evaluation of
mesh routing protocols for wireless community networks",
Computer Networks, Volume Vol. 93, Part 2, 24 pp. 308-323, December
2015, pp
308-323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.018,
2015. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.018>.

[NewMexico]
The
New Mexico Department of Information Technology, DoIT.
and CTC. Technology and Energy,
"Broadband Guide for Electric Utilities", CTC Technology &
Energy, Version 1, April 2015, available at
http://www.doit.state.nm.us/broadband/reports/
NMBBP_FiberGuide_ElectricUtilities.pdf, 2015.
<http://www.doit.state.nm.us/broadband/reports/
NMBBP_FiberGuide_ElectricUtilities.pdf>.

[Norris] Norris, P., "Digital divide: Divide: Civic engagement, information
poverty, Engagement, Information
Poverty, and the Internet worldwide", Worldwide", Cambridge University
Press ,
Press, ISBN 0521807514, 2001.

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

[NYTimes] Gall, C. and J. Glanz, "U.S. Promotes Network to Foil
Digital Spying", The New York Times, April 20, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/
us-promotes-network-to-foil-digital-spying.html?_r=1,
2014.

[olsr.org]
"olsr.org", OLSR.org web page http://www.olsr.org/, 2016. 2014,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/
us-promotes-network-to-foil-digital-spying.html?_r=1>.

[OLSR] OLSR.org, "OLSR", 2016, <http://www.olsr.org/>.

[Openair] Interface, OpenAir., "OpenAirInterface", OpenAir
Interface, OpenAirInterface, "OpenAirInterface: 5G software alliance
for democratising wireless
innovation, http://www.openairinterface.org/, 2016. innovation", 2016,
<http://www.openairinterface.org/>.

[OpenMesh]
"OpenMesh", OpenMesh web page http://www.open-mesh.com/,
2016.
Open Mesh, "Open Mesh", 2016, <http://www.open-mesh.com/>.

[Osmocom] Cellular Infrastructure, Osmocom., "Osmocom Cellular Open Source Mobile Communications (Osmocom), "Cellular
Infrastructure", GPRS bitrates , 2016. bitrates, 2016,
<https://osmocom.org/projects/osmopcu/wiki/GPRS_bitrates>.

[PAWS] Sathiaseelan, A., Crowcroft, J., Goulden, M.,
Greiffenhagen, C., Mortier, R., Fairhurst, G., and D.
McAuley, "Public Access WiFi Service (PAWS)", Digital
Economy All Hands Meeting, University of Aberdeen, Oct October
2012.

[Pietrosemoli]
Pietrosemoli, E., Zennaro, M.,

[PIE] Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and C. Fonda, G. White, "PIE: A
Lightweight Control Scheme To Address the Bufferbloat
Problem", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-aqm-pie-09, August
2016.

[Pietrosemoli]
Pietrosemoli, E., Zennaro, M., and C. Fonda, "Low cost
carrier independent telecommunications infrastructure", In
proc. 4th
Global Information Infrastructure and Networking
Symposium Choroni, Venezuela,
Symposium, pp. 1-4, DOI 10.1109/GIIS.2012.6466655,
December 2012.

[Rangenetworks]
Range Networks, Range., "Range Networks", Range Networks web
page, http://www.rangenetworks.com, 2016. 2016,
<http://www.rangenetworks.com>.

[Redhook] WiFi, Red., Red Hook WIFI, "Red Hook WIFI, a project of the Red Hook
Initiative", Red Hook WIFI web
page, http://redhookwifi.org/, 2016. 2016, <http://redhookwifi.org/>.

[Rey] Rey-Moreno, C., Bebea-Gonzalez, I., Foche-Perez, I.,
Quispe-Taca, R., Linan-Benitez, L., and J. Simo-Reigadas,
"A telemedicine WiFi network optimized for long distances
in the Amazonian jungle of Peru.", Peru", Proceedings of the 3rd
Extreme Conference on Communication: The Amazon
Expedition, ExtremeCom '11 ACM, Article No. 9, DOI 10.1145/2414393.2414402,
2011.

[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2309>.

[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

[RFC3626] Clausen, T., Ed. and P. Jacquet, Ed., "Optimized Link
State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3626, October 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3626>.

[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

[RFC6126] Chroboczek, J., "The Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 6126,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6126, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6126>.

[RFC6297] Welzl, M. and D. Ros, "A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort
Transport Protocols", RFC 6297, DOI 10.17487/RFC6297, June
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6297>.

[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
"The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
RFC 7181, DOI 10.17487/RFC7181, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7181>.

[RFC7567] Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.

[Samanta] Samanta, V., Knowles, C., Wagmister, J., and D. Estrin,
"Metropolitan Wi-Fi Research Network at the Los Angeles
State Historic Park", The Journal of Community
Informatics North America,
Informatics, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2008. 2008,
<http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/
viewArticle/427>.

[Sathiaseelan_a]
Sathiaseelan, A., Rotsos, C., Sriram, C., Trossen, D.,
Papadimitriou, P., and J. Crowcroft, "Virtual Public
Networks", In IEEE 2013 Second European Workshop on
Software Defined Networks (EWSDN) pp. 1-6,
DOI 10.1109/EWSDN.2013.7, October 2013.

[Sathiaseelan_b]
Sathiaseelan, A. and J. Crowcroft, "LCD-Net: Lowest Cost
Denominator Networking", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review Volume Review, Vol. 43, Number No. 2, April 2013,
2013.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2479957.2479966>.

[Sathiaseelan_c]
Sathiaseelan, A., Mortier, R., Goulden, M., Greiffenhagen,
C., Radenkovic, M., Crowcroft, J., and D. McAuley, "A
Feasibility Study of an In-the-Wild Experimental Public
Access WiFi Network", ACM DEV 5, Proceedings of the Fifth ACM
Symposium on Computing for Development, San Jose, Dec
2014 pp pp. 33-42,
DOI 10.1145/2674377.2674383, 2014.

[SDG] United Nations, UN., "Sustainable Development Goalx",
United Nations, Goals",
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300, 2015. Platform, 2015,
<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300>.

[Seither] Seither, D., Koenig, A., and M. Hollick, "Routing
performance of Wireless Mesh Networks: A practical
evaluation of BATMAN advanced", IEEE 36th Conference on
Local Computer Networks (LCN), 2011 IEEE 36th Conference on, Bonn, 2011, pp.
897-904. doi: 897-904,
DOI 10.1109/LCN.2011.6115569, October 2011.

[Shi] Shi, J., Gui, L., Koutsonikolas, D., Qiao, C., and G.
Challen, "Metropolitan Wi-Fi Research Network at the Los
Angeles State Historic Park", "A Little Sharing Goes a Long Way: The Case for
Reciprocal Wifi Sharing", HotWireless '15 Proceedings of
the 2nd International Workshop on Hot Topics in
Wireless , Sep Wireless,
DOI 10.1145/2799650.2799652, September 2015.

[Simo_a] Simo-Reigadas, J., Morgado, E., Municio, E., Prieto-Egido,
I., and A. Martinez-Fernandez, "Assessing IEEE 802.11 and
IEEE 802.16 as backhaul technologies for rural 3G
femtocells in rural areas of developing countries",
EUCNC ,
Proceedings of EUCNC, 2014.

[Simo_b] Simo-Reigadas, J., Martinez-Fernandez, A., Ramos-Lopez,
J., and J. Seoane-Pascual, "Modeling and Optimizing IEEE
802.11 DCF for Long-Distance Links", IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, 9(6) Vol. 9, Issue 6, pp. 881-896,
DOI 10.1109/TMC.2010.27, 2010.

[Simo_c] Simo-Reigadas, J., Martinez-Fernandez, A., Osuna, P.,
Lafuente, S., and J. Seoane-Pascual, "The Design of a
Wireless Solar-Powered Router for Rural Environments
Isolated from Health Facilities", IEEE Wireless
Communications vol. 15(3),
Communications, Vol. 15, Issue 3, pp. 24-30,
DOI 0.1109/MWC.2008.4547519, June 2008.

[Simo_d] Simo-Reigadas, J., Municio, E., Morgado, E., Castro, E.,
Martinez-Fernandez, A., Solorzano, L., and I. Prieto-
Egido, "Sharing low-cost wireless infrastructures with
telecommunications operators to bring 3G services to rural
communities", Computer Networks, Volume Vol. 93, Part 2, 24 Issue P2, pp.
245-259, December 2015, pp
245-259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.006,
2015.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.006>.

[Spectrum]
Laursen, L., "Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities
Build Their Own 4G Networks", Software-Defined Radio Will
Let Communities Build Their Own 4G Networks, 25 Nov 2015
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/softwaredefined-
radio-will-let-communities-build-their-own-4g-networks,
2015. November 2015,
<http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/
softwaredefined-radio-will-let-communities-build-their-
own-4g-networks>.

[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. , August 2014.

[Tech] Kazansky, B., "In Red Hook, Mesh Network Connects Sandy
Survivors Still Without Power", Monday, November 12, 2012
http://techpresident.com/news/23127/red-hook-mesh-network-
connects-sandy-survivors-still-without-power, 2012. 2012,
<http://techpresident.com/news/23127/red-hook-mesh-
network-connects-sandy-survivors-still-without-power>.

[TidePools]
Baldwin, J., "TidePools: Social WiFi, Parsons The WiFi", Parsons, the New
School for Design", Diss. Design, Doctoral dissertation, Master thesis
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94601219/
TidePools-Social-WiFi-Thesis, 2011. thesis,
2011, <http://www.scribd.com/doc/94601219/
TidePools-Social-WiFi-Thesis>.

[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
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#ftnc,
2013.
October 2013, <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/
m49regin.htm#ftnc>.

[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
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/
dyb2005/notestab06.pdf, accessed Mar 2016, 2005. 6 - Demographic
Yearbook 2005,
<http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/
dyb2005/notestab06.pdf>.

[Vega_a] Vega, D., Cerda-Alabern, L., Navarro, L., and R. Meseguer,
"Topology patterns of a community network: Guifi. net.",
Proceedings Guifi.net",
IEEE 8th International Conference onWireless on Wireless and Mobile
Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp.
612-619, DOI 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379139, October 2012.

[Vega_b] Vega, D., Baig, R., Cerda-Alabern, L., Medina, E.,
Meseguer, R., and L. Navarro, "A technological overview of
the guifi.net community network", Computer Networks,
Volume Vol.
93, Part 2, 24 Issue P2, pp. 260-278, December 2015, pp
260-278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.023,
and http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/docs/analysis.pdf ,
2015.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.023>.

[Village] Heimerl, K. and E. Brewer, "The Village Base Station", In
NSDR 2010, San Francisco, CA, USA ,
Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Networked Systems
for Developing Regions, Article No. 14,
DOI 10.1145/1836001.1836015, 2010.

[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 NSDI, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. pp. 1, Apr April
2007.

[WNDW] Wireless Networking in the Developing World/Core
Contributors, WNDW, "Wireless Networking in the Developing World, 3rd
Edition", The WNDW Project, available
at http://wndw.net, 2013. 2013, <http://wndw.net>.

[WorldBank2016]
The
World Bank, WB., "World Development Report 2016: Digital
Dividends", Washington, DC: The World Bank,
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentSe
rver/WDSP/IB/2016/01/13/090224b08405ea05/2_0/Rendered/PDF/
World0developm0000digital0dividends.pdf ISBN: ISBN
978-1-4648-0672-8, 2016. DOI 10.1596/978-1-4648-0671-1, 2016,
<http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentS
erver/WDSP/IB/2016/01/13/090224b08405ea05/2_0/Rendered/
PDF/World0developm0000digital0dividends.pdf>.

[WSIS] International Telecommunications Union, ITU, "Declaration of
Principles. Building the Information Society: A global
challenge in the new millenium", World Summit on the
Information Society, millennium", WSIS-03 / GENEVA / DOC /
4-E, December 2003, available
at http://www.itu.int/wsis, Dec 2013. <http://www.itu.int/wsis>.

[YateBTS] BTS, Yate., YateBTS, "YateBTS", Yate BTS web
page, http://yatebts.com/, 2016. 2016, <http://yatebts.com/>.

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially funded by the CONFINE European
Commission project (FP7 - 288535). Arjuna Sathiaseelan and Andres
Arcia Moret were funded by the EU H2020 RIFE project (Grant Agreement
no: 644663). Jose Saldana was funded by the EU H2020 Wi-5 project
(Grant Agreement no: 644262).

The editor and the authors of this document wish to thank the
following individuals who have participated in the drafting, review,
and discussion of this memo: Panayotis Antoniadis, Paul M. Aoki,
Roger Baig, Jaume Barcelo, Steven G. Huter, Aldebaro Klautau, Rohan
Mahy, Vesna Manojlovic, Mitar Milutinovic, Henning Schulzrinne, Rute
Sofia, and Dirk Trossen.

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

Contributors

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

Phone: +34 93 401 6807
Email: leandro@ac.upc.edu

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

Phone: +27 (0)21 959 2562
Email: crey-moreno@uwc.ac.za

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

Phone: +306945406585
Email: ikomnios@ee.duth.gr

Steve Song
Network Startup Resource Center
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia
Canada

Phone: +1 902 529 0046
Email: stevesong@nsrc.org

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

Phone: +27 (0)21 658 2740
Email: djohnson@csir.co.za
Javier Simo-Reigadas
Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieria de Telecomunicacion
Campus de Fuenlabrada
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
Madrid
Spain

Phone: +34 91 488 8428
Fax: +34 91 488 7500
Email: javier.simo@urjc.es

Authors' Addresses

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

Phone: +34 976 762 698
Email: jsaldana@unizar.es

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

Phone: +44 (0) 1223 763610
Email: andres.arcia@cl.cam.ac.uk

Bart Braem
iMinds
Gaston Crommenlaan 8 (bus 102)
Gent 9050
Belgium

Phone: +32 3 265 38 64
Email: bart.braem@iminds.be
Ermanno Pietrosemoli
The Abdus Salam ICTP
Via Beirut 7
Trieste 34151
Italy

Phone: +39 040 2240 471
Email: ermanno@ictp.it

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

Phone: +44 (0)1223 763781
Email: arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk

Marco Zennaro
The Abdus Salam ICTP
Strada Costiera 11
Trieste 34100
Italy

Phone: +39 040 2240 406
Email: mzennaro@ictp.it