Subject: [gaia] Review of draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-01

From: John Dowdell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:05:58 +0200

All

Just a comment on section 4 on technologies employed. I feel this section should be broken down into wide area network and local area network technologies. Each are in the broadest sense; consumers (personal computing or communication devices belonging to users of the internet) will attach to the local area network, carrier or infrastructure technologies are used in the wide area network to deliver internet services to the local area.

Thus local area technologies can include wired 802.3 and wireless such as 802.11a/b/g/n/ac, 802.16e, common mobile phone data technologies from GPRS to LTE.

Wide area technologies can include commonly used terrestrial last mile technologies such as xDSL, FTTC and FTTP and backhaul such as long-haul fibre Ethernet, and various first-mile and middle-mile wireless technologies such as satellite or carrier radio over SDH or 802.16. There is a need to distinguish between last mile to the premises (FTTP, Ka-band and L-band satellite) and last mile to a collection of premises (FTTC, SDH wireless, Ku-band and C-band satellite).

Then there is the question of where the document is headed. Is it the intention to create a ‘template’ by which low-cost and/or low-maintenance provision can be made for internet services, since backhaul can be very expensive in capex and opex? Also noting that such internet services might (as we saw in today’s meeting and have been deployed in informal settlements in South Africa) be constrained to local government services (because of the local government will to reach their population with e-services) or left open. The former could be delivered using highly tailored presentations for mobile apps or low-complexity web apps, further reducing the middle mile and backhaul cost per consumer to provide such services. Careful choices when designing, scaling and building the core network can also reduce cost.

One theme I saw a couple of times and was mentioned by one person at the mic today was power. A laptop might last nine hours on batteries, a smartphone not much more than 24 hours, and yet we seem satisfied with these numbers in developed countries. Live in (or even briefly visit) an area with minimal signal strength or no electricity and power becomes by far the primary concern. Thus the careful technology choices should also take into account power consumption. I’m hearing of smartphones (and even road signs) that have e-ink screens which boost battery life back to the levels of good quality GSM-only phones in the late 1990s which alleged a whopping 450 hours on standby.

Regards
John

---

From: Jane Coffin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:00:47 +0000

Hi Everyone -

I brought up the issue of power today, and agree with some of the points
raised below and during the meeting.  And, I understand the key point
raised by Mat re focus.

What is the window/process for additional targeted edits?

Best,
Jane

On 7/22/15, 11:05 PM, "gaia on behalf of John Dowdell"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>All
>
>Just a comment on section 4 on technologies employed. I feel this section
>should be broken down into wide area network and local area network
>technologies. Each are in the broadest sense; consumers (personal
>computing or communication devices belonging to users of the internet)
>will attach to the local area network, carrier or infrastructure
>technologies are used in the wide area network to deliver internet
>services to the local area.
>
>Thus local area technologies can include wired 802.3 and wireless such as
>802.11a/b/g/n/ac, 802.16e, common mobile phone data technologies from
>GPRS to LTE.
>
>Wide area technologies can include commonly used terrestrial last mile
>technologies such as xDSL, FTTC and FTTP and backhaul such as long-haul
>fibre Ethernet, and various first-mile and middle-mile wireless
>technologies such as satellite or carrier radio over SDH or 802.16. There
>is a need to distinguish between last mile to the premises (FTTP, Ka-band
>and L-band satellite) and last mile to a collection of premises (FTTC,
>SDH wireless, Ku-band and C-band satellite).
>
>Then there is the question of where the document is headed. Is it the
>intention to create a Œtemplate¹ by which low-cost and/or low-maintenance
>provision can be made for internet services, since backhaul can be very
>expensive in capex and opex? Also noting that such internet services
>might (as we saw in today¹s meeting and have been deployed in informal
>settlements in South Africa) be constrained to local government services
>(because of the local government will to reach their population with
>e-services) or left open. The former could be delivered using highly
>tailored presentations for mobile apps or low-complexity web apps,
>further reducing the middle mile and backhaul cost per consumer to
>provide such services. Careful choices when designing, scaling and
>building the core network can also reduce cost.
>
>One theme I saw a couple of times and was mentioned by one person at the
>mic today was power. A laptop might last nine hours on batteries, a
>smartphone not much more than 24 hours, and yet we seem satisfied with
>these numbers in developed countries. Live in (or even briefly visit) an
>area with minimal signal strength or no electricity and power becomes by
>far the primary concern. Thus the careful technology choices should also
>take into account power consumption. I¹m hearing of smartphones (and even
>road signs) that have e-ink screens which boost battery life back to the
>levels of good quality GSM-only phones in the late 1990s which alleged a
>whopping 450 hours on standby.
>
>Regards
>John
>
>_______________________________________________
>gaia mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:04:24 +0200

> On 23 Jul 2015, at 02:00, Jane Coffin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Send comments or text suggestions to the list and/or editors.

Mat

---

From: Javier Simó <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:18:23 +0200

Hello all

> Thus local area technologies can include wired 802.3 and wireless such as 802.11a/b/g/n/ac, 802.16e, common mobile phone data technologies from GPRS to LTE.
I don't think that this makes sense in the context of the Alternative 
Networks. One of the aspects in which our networks are "alternative" is 
the use for WAN of technologies initially conceived for LAN. In fact, 
802.11 was a WLAN technology in 1999, but the new standards in 2007 and 
2012 redefined it as WLAN / WMAN technology, and many use it for long 
distances beyond any possible definition as "local" or "metropolitan".
> Wide area technologies can include commonly used terrestrial last mile technologies such as xDSL, FTTC and FTTP and backhaul such as long-haul fibre Ethernet, and various first-mile and middle-mile…
I would never say that xDSL or FTTx are wide area technologies. Anyways, 
networks can be classified as local area or wide area, but technologies 
are more flexible than that nowadays. Although technologies may be 
oriented to access networks or to transport networks, Alternative 
Networks often use them differently, as is the case of WiLD (WiFi for 
Long Distances) used in rural transport networks.

> One theme I saw a couple of times and was mentioned by one person at the mic today was power. A laptop might last nine hours on batteries, a smartphone not much more than 24 hours, and yet we seem…

Yes, I find this point very important. Unfortunately green networking 
was fashionable in 2012-2013 but journals have lost interest on these 
issues. However, in developing regions and in rural areas in general, 
power efficiency should be a fundamental driver for technology selection 
and development.

-- 

---------------------------------------------------
Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <[email-masked]>
Subdirector de Ord. Docente
ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación
D-204, Departamental III
Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
Tel: 914888428, Fax: 914887500
Web personal: http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo

---

From: Jane Coffin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:37:59 +0000

>Send comments or text suggestions to the list and/or editors.
Excellent

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:44:46 +0200

Hi,

Our idea is to write a new version of the document including the feedback
received around the meeting of yesterday.

So feel free to send your comments. They are more than welcome.

BR,

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Jane Coffin
> Enviado el: jueves, 23 de julio de 2015 14:38
> Para: Mat Ford
> CC: gaia; John Dowdell
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] Review of draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-
> deployments-01
> 
> 
>

---

From: Jane Coffin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:47:20 +0000

Cool.  Great start and huge potential.