Differences From
Artifact [72171d1987]:
1 1 #+title: Community-Lab: A Community Networking Testbed for the Future Internet
2 2
3 3 * Introduction
4 4 ** Community networks
5 -- Origins: In spite of the importance of the Internet, companies left behind
6 - people and regions of little economic interest for them. Some groups
7 - started coordinating the deployment of their own networks for
8 - self-provision.
5 +- Origins: In spite of the importance of the Internet, companies and
6 + governments left behind people and regions of little economic interest for
7 + them. Thus some groups started coordinating the deployment of their own
8 + networks for self-provision.
9 9 - Characteristics: Open participation, open and transparent management,
10 10 distributed ownership, works and grows according to users' interests.
11 11 - Prospective: Strategic importance for the expansion of broadband access
12 12 throughout Europe (as stated in the European Digital Agenda).
13 13 - A challenge: How to support the growth and sustainability of community
14 14 networks by providing the means to conduct experimentally driven research.
15 15
................................................................................
34 34 - Internet: PlanetLab, planet-scale testbed with resource sharing on nodes.
35 35 Main inspiration for Community-Lab.
36 36
37 37 ** Community-Lab: a testbed for community networks
38 38 - The testbed developed by CONFINE.
39 39 - Integrates and extends three Community Networks: guifi.net, FunkFeuer, AWMN.
40 40 # Node maps here for CNs with captures from node DBs.
41 -- Also nodes in participating research institutions.
42 -- Linked together over FEDERICA.
41 +- Also nodes in participating research centres.
42 +- Linked together over the FEDERICA backbone.
43 +- All its software and documentation is released under Free licenses, anyone
44 + can setup a CONFINE testbed like Community-Lab.
43 45
44 46 * Challenges and requirements
45 47 ** Simple management vs. Distributed node ownership
46 48 - In contrast with esp. indoors testbeds that belong wholly to the same
47 49 entity.
48 50
49 51 ** Features vs. Lightweight, low cost (free & open)
................................................................................
75 77
76 78 ** Heterogeneity vs. Compatibility
77 79 - Lots of different devices (disparate connectivity and software openness).
78 80 - Lots of different link technologies (wireless, wired, fiber).
79 81
80 82 * Community-Lab testbed architecture
81 83 ** Overall architecture
82 -This architecture applies to all testbeds using the CONFINE software. Since
83 -all CONFINE software and documentation is released under Free licenses, anyone
84 -can setup a CONFINE testbed.
84 +This architecture applies to all testbeds using the CONFINE software.
85 85 # Move over overlay diagram less overlay connections plus overlay network.
86 86 - A testbed consists of a set of nodes managed by the same server.
87 87 - Server managed by testbed admins.
88 88 - Network and node managed by node admins (usually node owners).
89 89 - Node admins must adhere to a set of conditions.
90 90 - Solves management vs. ownersip problem.
91 91 - All components in testbed reachable via management network (tinc mesh VPN).