31 Aug
2018
31 Aug
'18
1:36 p.m.
Dear Sivasubramanian, an alternative link to the REMIX paper:
http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N19232
On 31/8/18 13:36, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote:
Even more simple, a CN with symmetric traffic (viewers but also hosting
content with demand) may get Internet access nearly for free in a IX
(the case of Freifunk in Berlin). No need to have a dedicated undersea
cable, which is "only" a point-to-point link ... Some rough numbers to
understand the scale, guifi.net with about 0.1 million users, a
significant part with 1 Gbps fibre at home does not need probably more
than 20 Gbps of Internet access (given traffic aggregation, and a big
part of traffic is directly served at an IX from content providers: CDNs
from Akamai, Google, FB, Netflix, etc)
Kind regards, Leandro.
Dear Leandro,
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 4:10 PM Leandro Navarro <leandro(a)pangea.org
<mailto:leandro@pangea.org>> wrote:
Some replies inline.
On 16/8/18 20:59, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
There have been and are many efforts that fit with that AIM, and the
Internet Society, together other organizations, are doing coordinated
efforts in that direction:
ISOC with many Beyond the Net projects,
https://www.internetsociety.org/beyond-the-net. Supported by the
European Commission, we are involved in the ongoing NetCommons.eu
research project, the past Confine-project.eu and Clommunity-project.eu.
There is this DC3 dynamic coalition, the APC Local access
(https://www.apc.org/en/project/local-access-networks-can-unconnected-connec…)
projects, the upcoming GISWATCH issue on Community networks, the GAIA
IRTF WG, the Community Networks SIG http://cnsig.info/about/ and perhaps
I'm missing some.
There are also many meetings and opportunities for coordination: GAIA in
IETF locations, http://cnxapac.org/ in Asia-Pacific, DC3 meetings at IGF
events, the IEEE Internet Initiative with a CN WG and meetings
https://internetinitiative.ieee.org/ among other regional and global
meetings ...
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:41 PM Leandro Navarro
<leandro(a)pangea.org <mailto:leandro@pangea.org>> wrote:
Hi !
Yes, the commons model is superior. CNs need to learn how to
make their implementations work on a millions scale.
At B4RN they say they give the best connectivity in the UK
because they dedicate all their resources to that, and they
don't have to pay others.
That is what is needed to build an independant community network.
Basing a Community Network on a 100 Mbps or a GBPS or two from an
ISP or a Telecom company makes it a good start, but the Network
is an effect a sub-distribution operation for a Telecom / ISP in
terms of its dependance.
I agree, there are communities that have started like that.
Sharing a transit connection is a good way to reduce the entry
barrier. One good case is RemIX in Scotland:
http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~mmf/res/pubs/gaia16_remix.pdf
The above link is broken, and also the link to remix architecture from
the
page https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/good-practice-remix-dist…
Several community networks, as they grow, aggregate more traffic,
buy more capacity from different carriers, get connected to IXPs
(e.g. Ninux, Freifunk, guifi, B4RN ... cases we have studied in
Europe) which allow them to exchange traffic with many other
networks, which results in better quality traffic for everyone
involved.
In the case of guifi.net <http://guifi.net> they also rent optical
regional circuits thanks to its cost-sharing model to aggregate
capacity (the sub-distribute/aggregate traffic you mention) from
multiple individual or local participating retail ISPs that are
part of guifi.net <http://guifi.net>. Therefore they bridge the
gap from retail capacity required by participants to wholesale
open-access fiber networks.
All these are good examples to follow. The goals of good community
networks such as guifi.net <http://guifi.net>'s goal of "promoting
advanced research in the filed of open networks and infrastructures,
and that of generating collaboration platforms between stakeholders"
worth expanded attention. There could be a concerted effort for
advanced research, and there could be a globally unified platform for
collaboration on Community Networks. The Internet Society could help
build one, using voluteer effort and open source technologies. Just to understand, do submarine networks
offer commercial
arrangements for transport on a minimal scale ( 1GB / 10 GBPS )?
I'd
say this is the role of global carriers and top tier ISPs that
offer these rates in many points-of-presence globally.
Submarine networks that are at a higher scale of aggregation.
It would be helpful to understand what this 'higher scale' is (For
example, See-Me-We 4 has a design capacity of 4.6 TBPS / s . Would it
be too insignificant for this network to provide a strand of 100
GBPS/s ? for we will eventually get there, and surpass this scale (one
or two new Community Networks with higher aspirations could even start
at the beach front) What is the typical cost of a 1GB / 10 GBPS
switch at an IXP? Do
IXPs everywhere offer supernodes to Community Networks?
CNs can participate in IXPs just like any other member org. The
price of ports in IXP I understand depend on the size and specific
infra costs of that IXP (size is really diverse). Many IXPs are
also distributed (PoP in multiple locations). These are from our
local IXP: http://www.catnix.net/en/taxes/
In addition, the transport/peering costs in the IXP vary depending
on the symmetry of traffic. For instance, I remember talking to
Freifunk in Berlin 1-2 years ago, and they were paying net 0 for
traffic (without entering into details) as they have a very
symmetric traffic (a good balance between content they deliver and
they request, the so called "eyeballs").
Would be helpful if any of the submarine
networks or its partners
and IXPs share their pricing roughly.
Many of these prices can be collected or guessed from diverse
sources. If you investigate that it would be useful to share the
results.
Kind regards, Leandro.
Sivasubramanian M
They're not the only ones. In
https://www.measurementlab.net/publications/2015-Braem-et-al.pdf
with independent data from M-Lab, you can see that 3 CNs are
among the best operators in their countries in quality (e.g.
section 4.2 pg 5, Figure 10 pg 6). We say: "The three
networks are among the top eight ISPs in download speed.
guifi.net <http://guifi.net> is ranked first in Spain both in
median upload speed and best median latency; Ninux (FusoLab)
is ranked second in upload, and fourth in best latency; AWMN
(part of LANCOM) is first in upload speed, 8th in best
latency. In the area of Barcelona, where guifi.net
<http://guifi.net> has its connections to Internet carriers,
the results are excellent: first in upload speed (guifi.net
<http://guifi.net> 7.82 Mbps, the Academic network 4.23 and
Cableuropa ONO 3.31), third in download speed (Cableuropa-ONO
18.1 Mbps, the Academic network 9.8, guifi.net
<http://guifi.net> 9.79) and first in best latency (guifi.net
<http://guifi.net> 14 ms, Vodafone 25, Cableuropa-ONO 35)".
That is something known in the world of free software. There
are free implementations that are superior to commercial ones
(Android is based on GNU/Linux, let's see when Movistar is
based on the infrastructure of guifi.net...). All commercial
software products are built from free software, built openly
and cooperatively (as commons), because that seems to be the
only way to have robust enough software
infrastructures/libraries at a reasonable cost/quality to
build stable products on top.
Cheers, Leandro.
On 16/8/18 17:27, Sarbani Banerjee Belur wrote:
Hi Sivasubramanian,
Community networks does exist in India and it is a sustainable initiative.
Gram Marg at IIT Bombay has set up one spanning 10 villages in Palghar,
Maharashtra, Digital Empowerment Foundation has set up some as well. There
are more going to be set up in this year and the next. These CNs are set
up in locations that have no mobile connectivity and are usually in
remote, rural villages of India.
Local ISPs have come to the rescue and provide bandwidth in such locations.
With regards,
Sarbani
> In Chennai, India, I spoke to someone in an educational institution about
> starting a Community Network. He argued that access is no longer a problem
> as Telecom companies offer 3G and 4G services everywhere. He wouldn't
> listen to arguments concerning the cost and clever pricing models of
> access
> that indiscernably amass huge sums by microscopic extraction, wouldn't
> listen to arguments about nominal and actual bandwidth. He and some
> others
> take the position that a case does not exist for Community Networks here.
>
> Happens to be an iconic opinion. It is a challenge to present arguments,
> articles such as this are of ample help.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 5:20 PM Marco Zennaro <mzennaro(a)ictp.it>
<mailto:mzennaro@ictp.it> wrote:
>
>> Interesting news:
>>
>>
>>
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ne5k5m/consumer-reports-broadban…
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Marco
>>
>> Marco Zennaro, PhD // Research Officer // T/ICT4D Lab // ICTP //
>> wireless.ictp.it <http://wireless.ictp.it>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DC3 mailing list
>> DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
>> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
>>
> _______________________________________________
> DC3 mailing list
> DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
>
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
--
Sivasubramanian M
Please send all replies to 6.Internet(a)gmail.com
<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3