User-centric Wireless Local-Loop

stagetofuAI and Robotics

Oct 29, 2013 (4 years and 15 days ago)

298 views

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
1

of
91


User
-
centric Wireless Local
-
Loop

ULOOP


Small or medium scale focused research project (STREP)

Date of preparation
:

September 2009

Date of negotiation session I: 20
th

March 2010

Date
of negotiation session II: 9
th

April 2010


Work programme topic

addressed
: ICT 2009
-
1.1,
The
Network of the Future


Name of the coordinating person
:
Olivier Marcé (
ALBLF
)

e
-
mail
:
olivier.marce@alcatel
-
lucent.fr

fax:

+33 1 30 77 61 75

Name of the
scientific
coordinating

person
:
Rute Sofia (
INESC Porto)

e
-
mail
:
rsofia@inescporto.pt


Participant no. *

Participant organisation name

Part.
short
name

Country

1 (Coordinator)

Alcatel
-
Lucent BellLabs France

ALBLF

France

2

(Scientific
coordinator)

Instituto Nacional de Engenharia e
Sistemas de Computadores do porto

INESC Porto

Portugal

3

Huawei
Technologies Duesseldorf
GmbH

HWDU

Germany

4

ARIA

S.P.A.

ARIA

Italy

5

Caixa Mágica Software, SA

CMS

Portugal

6

FON Wireless Limited

FON

United Kingdom

7

Technische Universität Berlin

TUB

Germany

8

University of Kent

UniK

United Kingdom

9

Université de Genève

UNIGE

Switzerland

10

Teleinform S
.
P
.
A

TLI

Italy

11

University of Urbino

UniUrb

Italy




FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
2

of
91

Costs Table (A3.2)

Executive Summary


The flexibility inherent to wireless technologies is giving rise to new types of access networks

and allowing
the
Internet

to expand in a user
-
centric way
. This is particularly relevant if one considers
that wireless
technologies such as
Wireless Fidelity (Wi
-
Fi)

currently complement
Internet

access broadband technologies,
forming the last hop to the end
-
user.
This fact

becomes even more significant due to
the dense deployment
of
Wi
-
Fi

Access Points
that is common today in urban environments.

Due to such density, a relevant aspect that c
an

be worked upon is leveraging such “wireless local
-
loop” by
developing networking mechanisms that allow adequate resource

management and a future
Internet

architecture to scale in an autonomic way
. Such wireless local
-
loop could then reach

rates
closer to the ones
provided by current access technologies.

A way to overcome
the

limitation
of today’s broadband access technologi
es
is to expand the backbone
infrastructure reach by means of low
-
cost wireless technologies that embody a multi
-
operator model, i.e., a
local
-
loop based upon what a specific community of individuals (end
-
users) is willing to share, backed up by
specific c
ooperation incentives and “good behaviour” rules.

The purpose of this project is therefore to explore the potential of having a wireless local
-
loop based upon a
user
-
centric (community) model extending the reach of a high debit, multi
-
access broadband bac
kbone from
different perspectives (technical and business models, as well as the expected telecommunications market
and legislation impact). Our expectations are to show that such model can be beneficial both from an end
-
user and from an access provider pe
rspective, given that it allows expanding high debit reach in a seamless,
cooperative, and low
-
cost manner, enabling the operators to focus on service rather than on pipes
.

Results from
ULOOP
relate

to software functionality
that is the basis for deploying

autonomic trust
management, resource management, as well as mobility management. Such functionality is to be provided in
the form of open
-
source software to b
e applied to Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), namely, to User
-
Equipment (UE) and to
Access Poin
t
(AP)
devices. Moreover, the consortium also expects to integrate
control plane functionality into access elements. For instance, in regards to interoperability of the wireless
communities that rely in the developed software,
there is the need to assist w
ith control from the access. This
FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
3

of
91

relates to user Authentication and Accounting as well as trust management, to resource management, and
also to mobility management. Summarising, the functionality developed in ULOOP is:



Software functionality for UE and AP
s.
This corresponds to an open
-
source image (to be
provided online or on a CD) which, when run, will assist in the development of ULOOP
architectures (wireless local
-
loop architectures) and in the interconnection of such architectures
with the current Inte
rnet in a neutral way. The software CD image will also include management
utilities to assist with feedback for the demonstrations and test
-
sites.



User
-
centric concepts and software functionality for the access.
This corresponds to specific
software module
s that will assist the global integration of ULOOP, particularly in regards to the
current access control plane.



One pilot.
ULOOP will develop a pilot which initially will consist of 5 sites (3 experimentation
sites and 2 living
-
lab alike sites) having in
mind large
-
scale validation, based on regular end
-
user
profiles, and on a later phase of the project, two large scale demonstrations.



FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
4

of
91


Table of contents

1

CONCEPT AND
OBJECTIVES, PROGRESS

BEYOND STATE
-
OF
-
THE
-
ART, S/T
METHODOLOGY AND WORK

PLAN

................................
................................
.........................

9

1.1

Concept and project objecti ves
................................
................................
................................
.......

9

1.1.1

Motivation

................................
................................
................................
................................

9

1.1.2

ULOOP Concept and Vision

................................
................................
................................
.......
11

1.1.3

ULOOP Pilot: Validation and Demonstration

................................
................................
.................
15

1.1.4

Main Objectives
................................
................................
................................
........................
18

1.1.5

Main Expected Outcome
................................
................................

Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.2

Progress Beyond the State
-
of
-
The
-
Art
................................
................................
...........................

21

1.2.1

Empowering the End
-
User

................................
................................
................................
..........
21

1.2.2

Evolution of Telecommunicat ion Wholesale Models

................................
................................
........
21

1.2.3

Making Wireless Architectures Autonomous

................................
................................
..................
22

1.2.4

Expanding High Rates to the User: Wireless Broadband Access

................................
.........................
22

1.2.5

The Perspective of the Access Operator: Remote Areas, Traffic Locality, and Service Differentiation

.......
22

1.2.6

Advances in 802.11

................................
................................
................................
...................
23

1.2.7

Advances in 802.21

................................
................................
................................
...................
23

1.2.8

Legislat ion and Wireless Communit ies

................................
................................
..........................
24

1.2.9

Related EU IST Activities

................................
................................
................................
...........
24

1.2.10

Summary of ULOOP Key Innovation Items

................................
................................
................
25

1.2.11

Criteria and Performance Indicators
................................
................................
...........................
26

1.3

S/T methodology and associated work pl an
................................
................................
....................

27

1.3.1

Overall strategy and general description
................................
................................
.........................
27

1.3.2

Timing of work packages and their components

................................
................................
..............
29

1.3.3

Work Package Description

................................
................................
................................
..........
35

1.3.4

Summary of Staff Effort

................................
................................
................................
.............
53

1.3.5

Risk management and contigency planning

................................
................................
....................
53

2

B2: IMPLEMENTATION

................................
................................
................................
.......

59

2.1

Management structure and procedures

................................
................................
.........................

59

2.1.1

Project Coordination Team Members and Responsibilities

................................
................................
60

2.1.2

Steering Committee

................................
................................
................................
...................
61

2.1.3

Day
-
to
-
day Task and Work Package Management

................................
................................
...........
61

2.1.4

Addition of Beneficiaries

................................
................................
................................
............
61

2.2

Indi vi dual partici pants
................................
................................
................................
................

63

2.2.1

Alcatel
-
Lucent BellLabs SA (ALBLF)

................................
................................
..........................
63

2.2.2

INESC Porto
-

Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores do Porto (INESC Porto

...................
64

2.2.3

Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH (HWDU)

................................
................................
........
65

2.2.4

ARIA S.P.A. (ARIA)

................................
................................
................................
.................
66

2.2.
5

Caixa Mágica Soft ware (CMS)

................................
................................
................................
....
67

2.2.6

FON Wireless Limited (FON)
................................
................................
................................
......
68

2.2.7

Technische Universitaet Berlin / DAI
-
Labor

................................
................................
...................
69

2.2.8

University of Kent (UniK)

................................
................................
................................
..........
70

2.2.9

University of Geneve (UNIGE)
................................
................................
................................
....
71

2.2.10

Teleinform S.P.A (TLI)
................................
................................
................................
...........
72

2.2.11

University of Urbino (UniUrb)

................................
................................
................................
.
73

2.2.12

SANJOTEC


Associação Científica e Tecnológica
................................
................................
......
74

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
5

of
91

2.3

Consortium as a Whole

................................
................................
................................
...............

75

2.4

Resources to be committed

................................
................................
................................
..........

77

3

IMPACT

................................
................................
................................
................................
....

79

3.1

Strategic impact

................................
................................
................................
.........................

79

3.1.1

Scientific Impact

................................
................................
................................
.......................
79

3.1.2

Social, Economic, and Business Impact

................................
................................
.........................
79

3.2

Plan for the use and disseminati on of foreground

................................
................................
...........

80

3.2.1

Dissemination
................................
................................
................................
...........................
80

3.2.2

Exploitation Strategies

................................
................................
................................
...............
82

3.2.3

Management of Results and of Intellectual Property

................................
................................
.........
88

4

REFERENCES

................................
................................
................................
.........................

90


FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
6

of
91

List of Figures


Figure
1
: Wi
-
Fi as last hop of the Internet, from an end
-
to
-
end perspective.

................................
............

9

Figure
2
: ULOOP, an example of applicability in a neighbourhood scope.
................................
............

12

Figure 3: ULOOP, an example of applicability across ULOOP communities in the Internet
.

..................

12

Figure 4: ULOOP main focus.

................................
................................
................................
...........

13

Figure 5: ULOOP Pilot, sites. Demonstration sites are in Madrid and in São João da Madeira. The remainder
sites will be used for experimentation purposes.

................................
................................
..........

16

Figure 6: ULOOP operation location and boundaries.

................................
................................
.........

19

Figure 7: Gantt chart.

................................
................................
................................
........................

29

Figure 8: ULOOP, technical content distribution over time.
................................
................................
.

30

Figure 9: WP and tasks dependencies.

................................
................................
................................

30

Figure 10: ULOOP organizational structure.

................................
................................
......................

59

Figure 11: ULOOP Steering Committee.

................................
................................
............................

60

Figure 12: Partner grouping according to Internet target area.

................................
..............................

76

Figure 13: Effort breakdown per WP and per Task.
................................
................................
.............

77



List of
Tables


Table 2.1: ULOOP Consortium.

................................
................................
................................
........

75

Table 3.1:

Partner business area and exploitation plan.

................................
................................
........

83

Table 3.2: Individual partner exploitation plans.

................................
................................
.................

84


FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
7

of
91



Acronyms


Term

Meaning

3GPP

3
rd

Generation Partnership Project

AAA

Authentication, Authorisation, Accounting

AP

Access Point

ASP

Application Service Provider

BIONETS

Bio
inspired service evolution for the pervasive age

BOWL

Berlin Open Wireless Lab

CAPEX

Capital Expenditures

CARMEN

Carrier Grade Mesh Networks

CC

Creative Commons

CODIV

Wireless Communication Systems Employing Cooperative Diversity

CP

Customer Premises

CPE

Customer Premises Equipment

DIS

Dissemination

DIYN

Do
-
it Yourself Network

EC

European Commission

EU

Europe

FTTH

Fiber to the Home

ICT

Information and Communication Technology

IEEE

Institut
e of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers

IETF

Internet

Engineering Task Force

ISP

Internet

Service Provider

LTE

3GPP LongTerm Evolution

MGT

Management

MIMO

Multiple Input, Multiple Output communications

MIP

Mobile IP

MIPv6

Mobile IP version 6

MVNO

Mobile Virtual Network Operator

NAN

Neutral
Access Network

NAP

Network Access Provider

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
8

of
91

OAN

Open Access Network

OBAN

Open Broadband Access Networks

OpenWEED

Open Wireless Experimentation and Evaluation Distribution

OPEX

Operational Expenditures

OSI

Open Systems Interconnection

P2P

Peer
-
to
-
Peer

PET

Privacy
-
enhancing Technologies

PM

Project Management

PM

Person
-
month

PSC

Project Scientific Coordinator

QAT

Quality Assurance Team

QoE

Quality of Experience

QoS

Quality of Service

RTD

Research and Development

SC

Steering Committee

SIP

Session Initiation Protocol

SOCIALNETS

Social Networking for Pervasive Adaptation

SP

Service Provider

UE

User Equipment

ULOOP

User
-
provided Local Loop

UMTS

Universal Mobile Telecommunication System

UPN

User
-
provided network

UWiC

University of Urbino

Wireless Campus

VO

Virtual Operator

Wi
-
Fi

Wireless Fidelity

WiMAX

Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave

WLAN


Wireless Local Area Networks

WoT

Web of Trust

WP

Work Package

WWRF

Wireless World Research Forum


FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
9

of
91


1

Concept and objectives, progress beyond state
-
of
-
the
-
art, S/T methodology
and work
plan


1.1

Concept and
p
roject

o
bjectives

1.1.1

Motivation

Today’s end
-
user is connected to the
Internet

by means of a variety of broadband access technologies which
usually do not dir
ectly reach the
end
-
user equipment

(UE)
. Rather, this final segment of the
local
-
loop (last
mile)

is provided by a
number

of short
-
range technologies, among which
Wireless
Fidelity (
Wi
-
Fi
)
is

the de
facto solution.

The growing popularity of Wi
-
Fi as a complementary technology to
Internet

broadband
access is not due to its extraordinary technical aspects. Instead, it relates to its low
-
cost, to the ease of use,
and to the high interoperability that it is capable of su
staining, when interfacing with
Internet

broadband
access technologies. Wi
-
Fi extends coverage of the most varied technologies (e.g.
Fiber
-
to
-
the
-
Home,
FTTH
), UMTS, be it in
enterprise

or residential scenarios, allowing
Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs
)

to abound.
Moreover and due to the recent introduction of the Wi
-
Fi direct
concept

[26]
, Wi
-
Fi coverage will
grow beyond what is expected and give rise to new conn
ectivity models.
The
Internet

of today can therefore
be seen as illustrated in
Figure
1
: a large cloud based on heterogeneous technologies (fixed, cell
ular,
wireless), which reaches the end
-
user in most cases by means of
deployed WLAN
.



Figure
1
: Wi
-
Fi as last hop
of the
Internet
,
from an end
-
to
-
end perspective.

Having a last
-
hop on the
Internet

based on Wi
-
Fi introduces problems but also some advantages in terms of
Internet

evolution

and
Internet

wholesale models. On the one hand, having Wi
-
Fi as the last
-
hop technology
introduces bottlenecks particularly if one considers broadband solutions suc
h as FTTH. Moreover, by
providing a WLAN for each
Internet

end
-
user, as complement of the broadband technology, WI
-
Fi
deployment becomes chaotic, particularly in highly populated areas. On the other hand, Wi
-
Fi is a highly
flexible and easy to deploy tech
nology, and thus appeals to the regular individual
Internet

end
-
user.

It is due to such flexibility and also to the wide deployment as last
-
hop (complementary) technology, that
Wi
-
Fi (as others forms of short
-
range wireless technologies) is giving rise to
new models of
Internet

connectivity, and to a new way to perceive future
Internet

architectures.

In these new
Internet

access (
Internet

connectivity
) models, the end
-
user is one of the key pieces and ceases
to simply be a consumer of
Internet

services (be
it connectivity or content)
,

to be
come

an active hop

of the
connectivity distribution chain.
In other words,
Wi
-
Fi

empower
s

the end
-
user as active stakeholder of
connectivity (sharing and/or relaying), be it
from a
local
scope
or from an end
-
to
-
end perspective.


It should be noticed that this is a natural step of the
Internet

evolution. In regards to
Internet

services, a
related paradigm shift has already emerged
as a

wave of open
-
source software and of new licensing models
FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
10

of
91

whi
ch culminated in the
Creative Commons (CC)

[8]

licensing. F
ounded by Lessig et al. CC licensing allows
authors to define the details of licensing ri
ghts regarding attribution, commercialization, derivative works, as
well as distribution. In the beginning, CC licenses were used only in blogs or Web sites such as Flickr; today
the
Internet

holds millions of sites whose content is protected under CC. Thi
s means that
Internet

users
are
no longer mere consumers
.

And this simple fact is changing the way citizens perceive and make use of the
Internet
.

The grassroots movement that was the basis for Web2.0
and also the key aspect in CC licensing can in fact
als
o be applied to the
networking

layers of the OSI protocol stack and
thus
create opportunities to
further
evolve the
Internet

value chain.
Internet

architectures where the end
-
user is an active stakeholder in some
form of networking service (of which connectivity is simply one example), i.e.,
user
-
provided networks
(UPNs)
, are today starting to expand
Internet

access both at a faster pace and poss
ibl
y at lower costs than
what would be

feasible if simply done by
Internet

stakeholders. This is
already
happ
en
ing both from a
commercial and non
-
commercial perspective. For instance, current commercial examples of UPNs relate to
the initiative of companies s
uch as FON, OpenSpark, or
Wi
-
Fi
.com (former Whisher). From a non
-
commercial perspective we assist to a number of user
-
centric or community initiatives (e.g. Freifunk,
CU
Win) which have as main purpose

to assist in the development of
Do
-
it
-
Yourself Networks

(DIYN)

based
on
Wi
-
Fi

technology, always as a way to expand
already existing/subscribed
Internet

connectivity
. It should
be noticed that such non
-
commercial initiatives are completely user
-
centric in the sense that it is up to the
user not only to assist
in building the last hop infrastructure, but also up to the end
-
user to control such last
-
hop architecture.

All the paradigm shifts that we are witnessing are based upon a specific form of cooperation between end
-
users towards network access or
Internet

se
rvices. Cooperation, as well as cooperation incentives, is
therefore
modeling

a new category of
Internet

community and impacting social and business behaviour.
However, technical limitations of today’s technologies, as well as a lack of understanding on ho
w such micro
business models may evolve and impact current
Internet

wholesale models

still undermine the potential
impact of networks where the user becomes an active link in the provision chain. There is neither a clear
modeling of incentives nor clear me
chanisms to develop cooperation incentives on the fly, incentives which
are prerequisite to the growth of such types of networks.

Worse, there are remaining security issues with
current Wi
-
Fi technology from cryptography strength to security usability that

need to be mitigated to avoid
deceiving its users. It has been reported [18] that fake Wi
-
Fi networks have been set up in airports in order to
capture users


sensitive information as they surf the Web when connected to these networks. The users have
no me
ans to know which Wi
-
Fi
community networks

are trustworthy.

The main motivation for the ULOOP project relates to the need to assist

an autonomic deployment
of
user
-
centric
wireless

local loops
.
Such support is provided in ULOOP by developing software
functionality
which sustains a robust, secure, and autonomic network
grow
th

in a user
-
friendly way,
thus becoming
the ba
sis for generating new services

and consequently
,

new business models for
curre
nt access and
Internet

stakeholders.

Hence, t
he project contribution is two
-
fold. First, ULOOP will explore and devise the fundaments to allow
user
-
centric
wireless

local
-
loops to form autonomously. The term
user
-
centric

in this context is meant to
expres
s a community model that extends the reach of a high debit, multi
-
access broadband backbone from
different perspectives (technical, business model
)
. Such a model is expected be beneficial both from an end
-
to
-
end and from an access perspective, given that i
t allows expanding high debit reach in a seamless,
cooperative, and low
-
cost manner. Second, ULOOP will contribute with both experimentation and
demonstration based on real settings of users, including diversified living
-
labs.

From a business perspective,
wireless local
-
loops that are built mainly based upon end
-
user cooperation
towards the access are a starting point to revisit current business models for broadband access and to

analyse

new business models. Similarly to what occurs in the energy sector in micro
-
generation models
[17]
,

i
n user
-
centric wireless
local
-
loops, the end
-
user becomes a m
icro
-
provider of a specific community by sharing
his/her subscribed broadband access within his/her community, as well as by providing specific
Internet

services, according to specific incentives. Such incentives may simply relate with a

well defined

human

trust
(social)
network, or even with some form of reward, e.g., gain coverage and
Internet

access beyond the end
-
user’s premises. They may be user
-
based; access
-
provider based; a mix of both cases.

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
11

of
91

Moreover, f
rom a network

access provider perspective

and

at a first glance
, the motivation to invest on such
models
could just seem related to

the possibility to expand capillarity in a low
-
cost way, as well as
to the
exploration of new services, which the users can help to define (community
-
based services).
Ho
wever,
ULOOP defends
that collaboration

between access providers and end
-
users
in terms of user
-
centric
networking services
opens up new possibilities in terms of business models, based upon a clear separation
between the service and network layers, as wel
l as between the network manager and the infrastructure
owner.
New types of operators that would act as organizers will appear therefore fostering competition and
clearly addressing the goal of an open and competitive digital economy.

Technical advantages

must be explored from an access perspective and are one of the main aspects to pursue
in ULOOP. For instance, by deploying
user
-
centric

wireless local
-
loops, it is possible to keep traffic local,
namely, to take advantage of the physical proximity of sour
ces and destinations and therefore, to prevent
traffic from crossing the full
access
backbone when sources and destinations are “close” (according to pre
-
defined criteria).
Traffic locality

rules can be applied in a wireless local
-
loop and will have as con
sequence a
reduction in
the access
OPEX

as well as an optimization of
spectrum
. Another intuitive advantage is the fact
that the subscription relation between the end
-
user and the access operator can be strengthened by having the
access operator empowering the end
-
user with partial networking functionality, in a way that is complete
ly
transparent to the end
-
user. In other words: such cooperative model (based upon
Internet

service micro
-
generation) gives the means for the access operator to provide value
-
added services that are more appealing
to the end
-
user and that go beyond regular

(
Triple Play
)
Internet

subscriptions, common today both in the
bundled and in
S
ervice
P
rovider

centric models

(cf. section 1.2.2 for details on these
Internet

wholesale
models)
. For instance, models such as the one embodied today e.g. by FON, when used in

strong cooperation
with access providers, give the means to access providers to offer
Internet

access subscriptions with
worldwide wireless roaming included, which by itself differentiates such service towards competitors.

1.1.2

ULOOP Concept and Vision

ULOOP
envisions
increasing

the potential of the
Internet

by devising communication and networking
technologies which support:



The creation of techno
-
social communities, providing a combination of information, communication
and human elements, by relying on adequate
modeling

of trust associations and trust levels.



Cost reduction for extending local loops, by relying on communicati
on opportunities (e.g. sharing of
Internet

access and relaying resources) provided by end
-
users in cooperation with access operators.



New services provided by communities as well as new business models for end
-
users and access
operators (following an analy
sis of the expected impact on telecommunications markets and legislation).



An increase in spectrum and energy efficiency in managing wireless communications.

ULOOP will explore and design the fundamental units to allow user
-
centric wireless (Wi
-
Fi) local l
oops to
form and to develop in an autonomic and user
-
friendly manner. User
-
centric refers to a community model
which extends

the reach of a high rate
, multi
-
access broadband
backbone
by means of communication
opportunities provided by end
-
users, based upon

cooperation incentives. Such incentives may relate to an
individual or a community of individuals, as well as to access stakeholders.

Moreover, user
-
centricity can be
discussed from two different perspectives.

Firstly, the user is in power of assisting th
e network in terms not
only of its deploym
ent, but also of its
proliferation
.

Second
ly
, services to be provided by the end
-
user are
assisted by an access infrastructure that is engineered towards assisting the user in terms of
Quality of
Experience (QoE)
.

In regards to the first aspect, deployment refers to assisting in sharing equipment that
makes the network scale. Deployment per se does not suffice for this type of architectures to grow.

1.1.2.1

ULOOP High Level Use
-
Cases

To better explain the rationale behind
ULOOP and before addressing the architectural building blocks, this
section describes two generic use
-
cases for ULOOP applicability, being the first case illustrated in
Figure
2
.

In this demonstrative scenario Bob, an end
-
user that subscribes to
Internet

broadband access at home,
belongs to the ULOOP community within his neighbourhood, which is covered by privately owned WLANs.
Alice, his mother, who als
o lives within the same

neighbourhood
, does not want to have broadband access at
home, on the assumption that the flat rate that she would have to pay does not compensate her service usage.
FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
12

of
91

Despite the fact that Alice neither has nor wants regular
Internet

access, she would like to have access to
multimedia provided by Bob. For instance, Bob and Alice would like to be able to share data once in a while
(e.g., digital photos from Bob's last trip to Greece) and also to be able to contact each other without th
e costs
associated with a regular broadband access subscription. Therefore, Bob gives Alice a laptop that
implements ULOOP functionality. Such functionality gives Alice the means to connect to some user(s) in the
same community that are willing to share co
nnectivity in the

neighbourhood

and that are “trusted”, according
to the parameters of trust established by the community and accepted by both Bob and Alice. By means of an
underlying trust network, communication between Alice and Bob is relayed through th
e community, being
directly processed by means of potential wireless devices in the range. In other words, wireless devices (e.g.,
someone’s PC, a PDA) relay the communication seamlessly based upon routing metrics that relate to trust
bonds and incentives
managed within the community. Consequently, traffic between Alice and Bob remains
local in scope, not crossing Bob’s access operator networks. However, since the performance of real
-
time
traffic (e.g.

VoIP
) degrades over wireless paths with multiple hops,
ULOOP functionally may also employ
an
Internet

access made available by community members in order to ensure extra reliability.



Figure
2
: ULOOP, an example of applicability in
a neighbourhood scope.


Figure
3
: ULOOP, an example of applicability across
ULOOP communities in the
Internet
.


This scenario is illustrative of ULOOP purpose within a specific community. ULOOP functionality will
allow wireless architectures to form on
-
the
-
fly, agnostically to the end
-
user, and based on available resources
and available equipment, as well as and on
the user’s willingness to cooperate in sharing privately owned
radio resources and
Internet

access.

Contrarily to what one could conclude at a first glance, this scenario does not jeopardize the access
provider’s business, and even, it is likely that it w
ill create new value. In this scenario, Alice did not find
enough incentive to subscribe to a broadband service, but she desires to get in touch with Bob. The entering
price to get a broadband access is too expensive
in comparison to the expected
Internet

usage
. In this
situation, ULOOP is the perfect answer from

a NAP perspective
. It allows Alice to enter in the IT world
without the need of an expensive broadband access installation, and then it permits the operator to propose
her higher value services wit
hout the usually associated cost of access infrastructure. In addition, from an
operator point of view, this creates a new market where access is shared between users. The success of this
kind of sharing relies on the trust of everyone toward
a third party
, e.g. as occurs with a reputation
mechanism such as the one embodied by eBay
. The operator is the perfect third party in this case, and it can
propose a trust and balance service that allows

creating new value.

A second and broader example is provided in

Figure
3
, where Tommy is a user

travelling

in Italy. Tommy
decides to see what his friend Amelie is doing in Paris. Tommy, however, does not want to l
ook for a
cybercafé
. Instead, he boots up his ULOOP enabled wireless device. By means of the ULOOP functionality
Tommy’s device contacts nearby wireless devices that have incentives to relay the
Internet

connectivity and
that are “trusted” to relay his communication. As soon as radio connectivity is established, Tommy’s device
goes through a process which provides it with
Internet

access, based on the local community that is willing to
share radio resourc
es. Since the quality of the wireless communication starts to decrease due to Tommy’s
FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
13

of
91

movement, ULOOP functionality is able to handover Tommy’s communication to a licensed frequency that
its owner agrees to relay ULOOP communication. Tommy’s communication
is handed over again to an
unlicensed frequency, as soon as Tommy’s device detects another wireless device willing to share its
Internet

access. While Amelie is walking towards the nearest park, the communication starts to fail due to the poor
radio qualit
y provoked by the dense forest. ULOOP functionally allows the communication to be kept by
relying on

neighbour

wireless device to mitigate the effects of wireless shadowing. Due to the community
location service offered by the local access operator, other
friends (located in Portugal and Norway) join the
chat and decide to use the group video call service that is offered locally.

One of the key aspects related to this second scenario is the fact that not all the users being contacted have
ULOOP functionali
ty on their devices. Indeed, one of the main goals of ULOOP is to

analyse

and to develop
the functionality that helps to know how to better integrate wireless local
-
loops into existing infrastructures,
both from a technical and from an economic perspective
. Therefore, the greater challenges to be addressed
relates to the widely open and uncontrollable aspects of such infrastructures. With such restriction, the role
of access stakeholders (operators and vendors) is crucial to achieve success, where the main
access
challenges foreseen within the fields of regulatory requirements (e.g. traceability or lawful interception),
support of intermittent connectivity, as well as privacy issues.

1.1.2.2

ULOOP Building Blocks

In order to assist with

the development describe, UL
OOP follows an evolutionary path to reach a Future
Internet

architecture, by building on existing work related to

the recent trend of
DYIN
s
. A fundamental
difference between such work and previous work on ad
-
hoc or mesh networking relates to the fact that

ULOOP assumes that an infrastructure providing
Internet

access to specific locations is available, and users
are simply willing to expand such infrastructure

in a way that is
user
-
friendly and plug&play. It

also
considers that

within specific trust sphere
s, specific cooperation incentives can be provided in order for both
the access and the end
-
user to cooperate and assist in further expanding the
Internet
. In order for that to
happen, there are three aspects that are often disregarded and which are consid
ered crucial

to sustain such
development as illustrated in
Figure
4
. These blocks are:
cooperation incentives and trust management
;
r
esource management
;
mobility
aspects
.


Figure
4
: ULOOP main focus
.


Cooperation incentives and trust management

relate to the network scalability aspects, as well as
robustness and reliability. In order for the network to scale adequately, it is necessary to

integrate incentives
that are appealing for end
-
users to share and to relay connectivity, i.e., for end
-
users to become an active part
of the communication chain. Meantime, the incentives must be adapted depending on the network need in
term of bandwidth
and connectivity: the greater the
demand, the most the incentive.

In order for these
networks to
accommodate

growth it is necessary to quickly be able to develop networks of trust, assuming
that users and devices are highly mobile. Hence, de
-
centralization

is a key aspect to consider in the trust
management functionality to be developed. ULOOP will base this functionality on

grassroots trust
models as

the basis to build future user
-
provided networks
, e.g.

Web of Trust (WOT)

schemes

and schemes that fight
ba
ck selfishness of peers (
tragedy of the commons
). ULOOP
proposes to research the most appropriate
computational trust metrics based on users rating filtered context and technical evidence to help the users
choosing the most trustworthy Wi
-
Fi networks witho
ut allowing the users to cheat.

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
14

of
91

Networks of trust give the means to choose adequately nodes that relay information (and hence influence
routing metrics). Another main aspect related to trust management is end
-
user misbehaviour.

The attacks that
may have a more significant and negative impact on user
-
centric

networks are incorrect traffic relaying
attacks as well as impersonation attacks.
ULOOP will address this challenge by integrating trust management

schemes that follow human
trust
behaviour, namely,
incentive
(rewards,
can be user
-
based, access
-
provider
based, or even a mix of both cases)
and reputation schemes.

Trust and reputation themselves will be
considered as a virtual currency that can sustain participation in the ULOOP

community of users.


Within ULOOP, trust management aspects relate to understand how to build networks of trust on
-
the
-
fly,
based on reputation mechanisms able to identify end
-
user misbehaviour and to address social aspects, e.g.,
the different types of l
evels of trust users may have in different communities (e.g., family, affiliation, etc).
Such grassroots networks of trust aim to accommodate the network growth and dynamism due to the high
mobility of end
-
users.

Another key aspect relates to the developme
nt and validation of a set of methods and techniques that make it
possible to optimize network resources in regards to social behavior, i.e. how to exploit Social Networking
information t
o create/optimize/add trust to
ULOOP communities.

Hence, ULOOP will
not consider specific user profiles and therefore, privacy is not an issue. Instead,
profiling will relate to metrics such as the average number of times
devices (identified by MAC address)

within specific environments

encounter each other. It should be no
ticed that all this information is today
passively exchanged and overhea
r
d by IEEE 802.11 devices, being part of the standard mechanism.


Resource management

is essential to allow the described architectures to grow steadily and to
automatically adjust to
changes. A user
-
centric local
-
loop represents an infrastructure where several entities
(individuals) indirectly cooperate to ensure connectivity and reliability in data delivery. Main resource
management aspects that are to be addressed in ULOOP relate to
the capability to develop a robust and
scalable wireless local
-
loop on
-
the
-
fly
as well as to increase the spectrum and energy efficiency in the user
-
centric network
.

Cooperative
resource management

techniques are to be addressed from
an

OSI Layer 3 and
an
OSI Layer
2
perspective
.

C
ross
-
layer aspects will be considered whenever necessary. Aspects that are
considered crucial in terms of resource management are to increase the debit of the wireless local
-
loop up to
a level similar to the one provided by the br
oadband access technology; how to take advantage of
overlapping spectrum ( instead of trying to prevent it as is the case in cognitive radio research and based on
techniques from OSI Layers 3 and 2); how to manage resources

efficiently and reliably

from a
de
-
centralized
perspective, in the presence of a multi
-
operator access network, in neutral based network models.

Another aspect to be considered relates to the optimization of resource distribution, both from a resource
admission control perspective, as w
ell as from an attempt to optimize the network
behaviour

based on
already existing aspects of the privately

owned
WLANs available. For instance, currently the
Wi
-
Fi

infrastructure mode does not take into consideration user expectations

which lead to be inc
apable of assisting
users in terms of QoE;
nor the fact that a station may be transmitting at a lower rate or at a higher rate
, which
leads to energy inefficiency.

Mobility aspects

are central to ULOOP, given that in ULOOP,
Internet

end
-
users are expected to show a
dynamic
behaviour
. Some nodes (the majority) are expected to be carried by the end
-
user and therefore will
move based upon social aspects. Therefore, it is essential
for

ULOOP to be able to address ways to optimize
handove
rs. Mobility aspects in ULOOP are also
a
key
aspect
to assist adequate resource management, as
well as trust management. Mobility support in ULOOP is also complicated by the fact that a ULOOP cannot
rely on a fixed mobility management infrastructure
-

wher
eas current mobility management solutions

(SIP
[RFC3261], MIP [RFC3775]
, 3GPP mobility management) make use of central mobility
anchor points

to
keep an
association between previous and current identities for a mobile node that
moves between different
acce
ss points and

across different networks.
Taking into account the autonomous nature of user
-
centric
wireless local
-
loops, ULOOP will work on decentralizing mobility management with the goal of self
-
organized selection and cooperation of mobility coordinatio
n point(s).

Another issue is the discovery of the target handover access point, which may be located in the same
ULOOP, another ULOOP, or in operator
-
owned infrastructure. Here we need to move beyond the hardwired
FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
15

of
91

solutions offered e.g. by 3GPP or the
solution currently offered by IEEE 802.21 (Media
-
independent
Handover), which does not support real
-
time update of the candidate
-
access point database.

One additional mobility management aspect that is to be considered in ULOOP is the potential application

of
social
-
based mobility models which allow to predict movement of the ULOOP infrastructure nodes and
hence, to be able to optimize different aspects of the network operation (e.g., station distribution).

1.1.2.3

Integration Aspects

The described ULOOP core conce
pts represent the functionality that will sustain a self
-
organizing and user
-
friendly formation of any user
-
centric wireless local
-
loop. As mentioned before,
the second step of the

ULOOP approach

relates to the
integration of such infrastructure into legac
y ones
, i.e., to
interoperability aspects. As already illustrated in
Figure
4
, these will be worked upon from three different
perspectives, namely, the
end
-
user
perspective
, the
access perspective
, as well as the
service perspective
.

From an end
-
user perspective, main questions that arise relate to
plug&play

and automatic setup of each
node (based on different environments) as well as to the need to assist the end
-
user without relying on a
centralized and complex control mechanism. In other words, ULOOP considers an autonomic model where
users willing to cooperate dynamically move across a range of different
locations
. It is therefore necessary to
ensure that the w
ay the network forms and the way the user joins or leaves the network is done with
minimum user intervention.

Network interoperability topics relate to the need to ensure interoperability
between different types of radio local
-
loops, and to/from legacy net
works. ULOOP will address ways to
interconnect the different types of systems, ensuring reliable interoperability, both from a network
management perspective and from a node management perspective.

Service interoperability topics relate to
the need to ensu
re that services that are currently being provided across the
Internet

still reach the end
-
users

with a quality level that is at least as good as what can be provided by the legacy system.

1.1.3

ULOOP Pilot: Validation and Demonstration

One of the key aspects of

the ULOOP
outcome

relates to its sustainability in realistic environments
, in
particular scalability
. Experimentation under realistic settings is therefore a main aspect to address. In
addition to the necessity of validating and developing each building b
lock in isolation, the consortium has
chosen three different categories of realistic scenarios which can demonstrate, based on different user
communities and different access conditions, not only the validity of ULOOP, but also its scalability.


By initia
lly using controlled test sites, any interoperability issues can be worked out and if additional
parameters are found for the testing and validation suite they can be incorporated without affecting too many
clients. As the test sites become more stable and

the software and test suites more reliable, the individual test
sites will then be linked together over the
Internet
. Again at this stage, various issues may need to be
resolved and at this stage, real testing of performance parameters can be achieved and

scalability issues to do
with linking multiple ULOOP sites can then be investigated.

In ULOOP, particular emphasis is put into experimentation and also demonstration aspects in realistic
scenarios. For this, ULOOP will develop a pilot which will be compo
sed of
test bed

sites and also
demonstration sites, as illustrated in
Figure
5
. Three main sites are to be considered for global validation
purposes.
In addition, two different sites are to be relied upon for demonstration purposes.

This pilot is therefore intended as one possible (but not the single one) embodiment of an ULOOP
architecture.

As the project continues and findings start to be released in
terms of milestones there
may come a point where other commercial entities will be keen to become a demonstration site.
Controlled growth from within the partners and then general expansion can be used as an extended
validation but it is not essential in t
erms of the project deliverables.

What will be important as part of the deliverables will be the analysis of results found from the individual
test sites and also the results found from linking the test sites
alt
ogether
. An extension of the test
-
site
analysis
is that found from the analysis of the demonstration sites which provide a more realistic scenario for the
deployment of ULOOP framework.

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
16

of
91



Figure
5
: ULOOP Pilot,
sites. Demonstration

sites are in Madrid and in São João d
a Madeira. The
remainder sites will be used for experimentation purposes.

1.1.3.1

Experimentation Sites

A first experimentation site

is the
Berlin
Open Wireless Lab (BOWL)

[6]
.
BOWL

maintains a reconfigurable
wireless outdoor
test bed

with 50 nodes, which spans

across the main campus of
the
Tech
nical University of
Berlin

(TUB)
. The
test

bed

can be configured to serve as both an infrastructure and a mesh network. The
outdoor
test bed

within BOWL also serves to provide access to the TU
B

community, creating a unique
opportunity for understanding the real
-
world performance of proposed solutions.


Each of the nodes has the possibility to work as an
Internet

gateway

and is also reachable by a fixed
connection which allows

pro
per monitoring and measurements
. This prevents noticeable impact on the end
users, which is crucial to sustain a functional l
iving test environment with actual network usage
, and
increases the incentives of user participation.
All mesh nodes (access points) of the

BOWL

test bed

are
running

an in
-
house
-
built Linux
distribution

called the
Open Wireless Experimentation and Evaluati
on
Distribution (OpenWEED)
, which is a modified version of OpenWRT. To prevent interference of the actual
experiment with client access t
o

the network, mesh nodes have dedicated wireless interfaces for access and
for the mesh network.

The
test bed

is not c
urrently open to the use of students. However, a large number of end
-
users, on the order
of a few hundreds of students, are expected to use the mesh network on average per day when the
test bed

is
open for connection during an experiment. This is due to th
e natural incentive of robust connectivity in a
large outdoor area within the campus,


FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
17

of
91

Another experimentation site is the
Urbino Wireless Campus (UWiC),

managed by UniUrb. UWIC is a
wireless
Open Access Network (OAN)

conceived and implemented by the Univ
ersity of Urbino, in Italy, to
virtually extend the University campus while also providing a real
-
world
test bed

for innovative access
network models. Currently it is composed of around 100 Wi
-
Fi hotspots (running either Mikrotik RouterOS
or OpenWRT) and 7

Hiperlan base

stations (running Mikrotik RouterOS) deployed in Urbino, Pesaro, and
Fano. The interconnection backbone is neutral and not part of the University intranet. Hence the access
network does not expose critical data or services and it is not part

of the
Internet
. Policy constraints can be
significantly relaxed, making it possible to share the access infrastructure with third party operators and to
provide information services to unauthenticated users. Each operator has his/her own edge router
within the
access infrastructure, in order to be allowed to provide his/her services without further agreements with the
access network manager. The server farm is composed of 15 virtual machines running Linux OS.

Since 2006, UWiC has been used as a living

lab for interdisciplinary research in the field of access networks
[2]
. UWiC has involved about 50 partners (including municipalities, WISPs, vendors, service pro
viders,
wireless com
munities, and Wi
MAX operators). I
n 2008, UWiC became a working prototype of a
Neutral
Access Network (NAN
), a special class of OAN conceived as a mean to overcome broadband market
stagnation by granting positive externality t
o the acces
s infrastructure
.
Also
,

i
n 2008

UniUrb

signed an
agreement with FON to create a user
-
centric worldwide wireless network opened to university students.
Preliminary experiments have been successfully conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the project.

UWiC counts with more than 20,000 registered users. Among them, more than 5,000 are active users
who
use

the wireless network at least once and gained access to the
Internet

through the edge router of UniUrb.
On average, the Wi
-
Fi network is used by 200 no
madic users simultaneously. The geographic distribution of
users changes over time. In working days, the majority of
Wi
-
Fi

connections come from university buildings
in the morning, from public places in the evening, and from student dorms during at night.

During the
weekend, connections come mainly from public places and dorms. It is often the case that many users (up to
20) connect from the same place and work close to each other. Students connect for free, and session
durations range from a few minutes t
o several hours. In addition, the wireless access network is used by non
-
academic users who buy
Internet

bandwidth from public operators (WISPs). At the moment there is only one
WISP in UWiC, which serves both nomadic and residential users. The WISP has in
stalled about 30 Hiperlan
CPEs which are directly connected to the UWiC backbone.

The third experimentation site corresponds to a
specific set of nodes belonging to the TLI network
. As a
WISP, TLI provides already wireless access to its customers and regul
ar IP services in the form of IPv4 and
IPv6 and thanks to its participation to the IST
-
ANEMONE
[12]
.

TLI has already deployed experimental
MIPv6
/NEMO nodes in Monr
eale in 2.4
GHz

and 5
GHz

unlicensed frequencies which are based on
Mikrotik/Routeros for the backbone and Linux based for the Access. The TLI ULOOP experimentation site
will therefore rely both on existing access points and new nodes where the open
-
source o
perating system of
choice in ULOOP will be installed. The Access network will operate mainly on the regular 2.4
GHz

unlicensed frequency and it will
be interconnected

to the rest of the network by 5
GHz

backbone or fiber. The
nodes will be available to the c
onsortium and interconnected to the other partners via tunnelling techniques.

For ULOOP experimentation, TLI envisions to provide 20 different APs located within Monreale, in specific
locations to define during the project. The 2.4
GHz

Access Points in Monreale will be Linux based and will
implement the ULOOP node distribution.
The nodes to be used in the experiments will be isolated from the
commercial backbone by specific equipment in order to prevent operational problems. Moreover, t
raffic due
to the experiments is to be regularly monitored according to the Italian telecommunications legislation.

It also must be noted that TLI participates to the Sicilian Living Lab
[24]
, so in the future TLI expects to
interconnect (where possible) the activities of the Sicilian Living Lab with the ULOOP experimentation in
order to explore both the technical aspects and the business models like in previous wor
k in rural areas

[3]
.

1.1.3.2

Demonstration Sites

The second category of sites to be provided in the ULOOP pilot relate to demonstration sites. Two main
demonstration
sites

are considered in ULOOP: i)
Specific FON living
community in
Argüelles
-
Moncloa
,
Madrid, Spain; ii) S
ão
Jo
ã
o
da Madeira, Portugal.

The demonstration sites are to be used
during

the last year of the project to validate and to disseminate the
functionality a
nd concepts developed. For such purpose, specific events will be performed in order to reach a
FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
18

of
91

large number of users simultaneously.
The methodology followed on the demonstrations is explained in
section 1.3 (WP5).

The

Argüelles
-
Moncloa

district is within
the range of the University district

in Madrid, and henc
e is a highly
populated neighbourhood,
being
th
e student share of the population

the target users in ULOOP
. The
neighbourhood covers a large area and a population of circa 26 000 inhabitants. 10% of t
he population is
under
the
age
of
15, while 25%

of the population

is above 65 years of age. 34% of such population
corresponds to

students.

The area is considered as a FON density project and hence, the partner FON will
provide full control to such demonstration area. Currently, it
contains around 360

FON

active

hotspots.

Hence, equipment to rely upon is released under the control of FON, bei
ng users registered within the FON
management suite.

It should be noticed that the FON community users access the
Internet

by regular
subscription, being the access provided by multiple operators.

The
S. João da Madeira
Industrial Living
-
Lab
(SJM
-
ILL
)

will

be the second demonstration site.

The Living
-
Lab is provided and managed by Sanjotec
, whom

will enter the project as a third
-
party. SJM

is a small
council of 8 km2, located in the Northern Region of Portugal, which is part of the Entre Douro e Vouga sub
-
r
egion, located 40 km from Porto
. It contemplates a population

of 21.000 inhabitants and 370 industrial
companies, mainly SMEs
.
The target end users of the SJM
-
ILL are the local SMEs of the shoe and
automotive clusters, technological based enterprises and t
heir customers
. SJM is covered by WiMAX and
Wi
-
Fi

due to an initiative of SJM
-
ILL, which targets the global population (both residential and enterprise).
Currently this infrastructure has a coverage rate of 60% of S. João da Madeira´s geographic area, alth
ough is
envisaged that this coverage will increase to achieve 95%, due to the implementations of
additional

and
new
er

equipment. With the current infrastructure there are on average approximately 2000 to 3000 users,
with an expected significant increase of

users in short term. Concerning the current end users, about 70% are
residential
20% public institutions, 5% industrial and 5 visitors.

The current SJM
-
ILL infrastructure is based
on an optical fiber backbone (10km) onto which the WiMAX infrastructure is
plugged. WiMAX equipment
contemplates 3 WiMAX Base Stations,

28 intelligent mesh APs,
as well as
different storage and network
management units.

In annex to this proposal is a brochure describing the living
-
lab, and the
wireless
infrastructure of SJM
-
ILL.

1.1.4

Main Objectives

and Expected Outcome

In order to devise the concepts and software functionality and to achieve the vision described in the previous
section, ULOOP will follow a two
-
step approach to develop novel functionality that
relates

mostly
to

OSI
Layers 2 and 3, but that will take into consideration OSI Layer 1 functionality and most importantly, user
expectations, as well as network policies.

To

better explain where the boundaries of ULOOP reside and which type of outcome is expected,
Figure
6

provides a generic illustration of the Internet, where the location of
SPs (ISPs, VO, ASPs)
, of
Network
Access Providers (NAP)

as well as of the

Internet end
-
user
Customer Premises (CP)
is pointed out
. In this
example two different NAPs provide Wi
-
Fi coverage to residential complementary Wi
-
Fi Internet access
(privately owned WLANs), to Wi
-
Fi municipalities, or commercial hotspots.

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
19

of
91


Figure
6
: ULOOP operation location and boundaries.

The aforementioned examples relate to different types of
communities

which represent an individual or a
group of individuals that are willing, based upon specific cooperation incentives and als
o based upon on
-
the
-
fly trust management setup, to share already existing subscribed Internet access. The core functionality to be
developed in ULOOP is what will sustain such a notion of community, and also the adequate cooperation
setup. By being based o
n existing Wi
-
Fi equipment, ULOOP will also consider existing Wi
-
Fi operation
modes (infrastructure mode and mesh modes), which are today the most popular modes for the development
of Wi
-
Fi communities on
-
the
-
go, or for user
-
empowerment related to
DIYN

[9]
.

As illustrated, ULOOP functionality will reside in user
-
equipment, Wi
-
Fi
Access Points (APs)
, and also on
the control plane of both NAP and SPs. In regards to both UE and APs, ULOOP functionality will be
provided to the public domain in the form of open
-
source software modules which may be placed on
APs

or
end
-
user devices that are Wi
-
Fi enabled.

It is not within the scope of ULOOP to consider proprietary
hardware, or make changes to closed systems.

Instead, only open
-
source (e.g., OpenWRT
-
based) equipment
is to be considered, from an AP perspective. From an end
-
user perspective, ULOOP will addre
ss the three
main types of operating systems in use today, namely, Linux, Windows, as well as MacOS. The Linux
version will also be devised having backward compatibility with Android
[5]

in mind and in close
connection to the Wi
-
Fi Direct development
1
. The specific variants of each operating system to be
considered will be taken care of during the project development.




1

The Wi
-
Fi Alliance expects the first specification to appear in mid 2010.

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
20

of
91


Summarising,
t
he

main objective
s in ULOOP therefore are:



Outcome 1, t
o develop and validate identified core mechanisms that aid in the formation of a
generic user
-
centric,
robust, trustworthy,
low
-
cost,
and indirectly
energy
-
efficient wireless
local
-
loop
.
These core building blocks, whi
ch are further described in section
1.1.2.2

are:
cooperation incentives and trust management
;
resource management
;

mobility aspects
. In concrete
terms of results, each building block is to be built from specification to prototype, and
validated
throughout the project lifetime (cf. WP3, section
1.3.3.3
)
.

Each of the building blocks will be
delivered as software functionality (cf.
List of Deliverables on section
1.3.2
) expected to run on
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)

and also on access equipment

as described in section 1.
1.5.
Moreover, integration of the functionality developed is to be covered by task 3.4 (cf. WP3, section
1.3.3.3
). In the end, the project will prov
ide several software suites: one for each block that can be
used in isolation, and a global software suite, an out
-
of
-
the
-
box software solution. A book explaining
how this functionality can be used is to be provided by the end of the project. Moreover, ULO
OP
contemplates 2 industrial events intended for the operator and access markets. The software is to be
made available in the project in public repositories (both source and binaries) in the end.

While the
project is ongoing the results will be limited by
password authentication to the partners involved to
avoid potential dissemination of results in a non pre
-
decided manner. Once the results are made
public the server will have the results moved to a public directory where the results can be analysed
as and

when needed. Anonymous user data and records will be stored for statistical analysis.
Financial details will not be stored on the server nor will any private data be stored on the server.

The main milestones related to this objective are MS4
(Overall spec
ification)
in month 12; MS6
(ULOOP software suite)
and MS8
(ULOOP large scale validation)
in month 34
.




Outcome 2, t
o analyse the ULOOP

impact on
socio
-
economic sustainability and on
telecommunications legislation
.

Based on specific use
-
cases that are to be defined in WP2 (cf.
Section
1.3.3.2
)
ULOOP will provide a network neutrality analysis for ULOOP archite
ctures, and
also contribute with a survey on current Wi
-
Fi communities related legislation and use
-
cases. Main
milestones related to this objective are MS3 (Socio
-
economic analysis, month 6). The analysis and
studies to be performed in ULOOP are to be diss
eminated both to the R&D community as well as to
related standardisation fora and bodies, following the dissemination plan described in WP5 (cf.
Section
1.3.3.5
).




Outcome 3, t
o bring awareness and to impact current standardisation in regards to
ULOOP concepts
.

A specific dissemination and standardisation plan is one of the main
objectives of ULOOP. We intend to bring awareness to the possibilities th
at autonomous
wireless architectures (such as the ones deve
loped in ULOOP) open up, and to show the
impact that the new concepts may have in related study groups, standardisation bodies, etc. In
addition to the regular R&D tools, ULOOP will generate awaren
ess by developing several
events (cf. WP5) specifically organized and hosted by partners of the consorortium, having in
mind to show the benefits of ULOOP to at least the main target groups: R&D community;
European access operators and European alternative

operators; Service Providers, and the
Internet end
-
user. Such awareness will not only be performed along the project lifespan, but
ULOOP will also provide an exploitation plan with a five
-
year vision post
-
ULOOP, where a
roadmap will give insight on how UL
OOP results can impact future Internet architectures (cf.
D5.4, Exploitation plan).




Outcome 4, t
o develop a pilot which will assist experimentation from a wide scale
perspective
, as well as assist global demonstrations, based on the willingness of real
end
-
users (
MS7, month 34
).

FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
21

of
91


1.2

Progress Beyond the State
-
of
-
The
-
Art

1.2.1

Empowering
the

End
-
User

The new end
-
user
centric

networking architectures and the new role of the end
-
user as micro
-
provider (both
a consumer and a provider of networking services) is a conse
quence of a paradigm shift in Internet services
that started with the Peer
-
to
-
peer (P2P) model that , empowered end
-
users as active (Internet service)
providers.

FON and OpenSpark are living examples of user
-
centric networks. Whisher goes a step further i
nto user
-
centric wireless models, by placing all the functionality in software integrated into the end
-
user device. In
contrast to the model embodied by FON and OpenSpark, Whisher allows dynamic dispersion of Internet
access points, since sharing connectiv
ity points are mobile. All of these have in common an end
-
user
empowerment in regards to the possibility and willingness to share subscribed Internet access.

From an European IST perspective, the
Open Broadband Access Networks

(OBAN, FP6, 2004
-
2007) was
dedicated to research on open access networks built upon existing (subscribed) WLAN access. OBAN
viewed the Residential Gateway element as a convergence point for the aspects considered, and always from
an access perspective. The
Social Networking for Perv
asive Adaptation

(SOCIALNETS, FP7, FET, 2008
-
2011) is a recent project dedicated to the analysis and development of autonomic trust management systems,
based upon the analysis of human trust behaviour and patterns, considering the Internet end
-
user as a
co
nsumer of services only.

ULOOP goes beyond this state of the art, by addressing how to improve existing models, particularly in what
concerns motivation and incentives to allow such cooperative approaches to spread. The modeling of the
adoption of user
-
cen
tric networks is therefore a central point in ULOOP. Another key differentiator of
ULOOP w
ith respect to

technology that is available today

is that any end
-
user device is seen as part of the
network and as possible convergence points (not just the Resident
ial Gateway as in OBAN or FON). Trust
management and human behaviour are considered in ULOOP to empower the user
with
the capability to
become an active (Internet service) provider.

1.2.2

Evolution of Telecommunication Wholesale Models

Telecommunication markets
worldwide are witnessing a strong evolution towards a full liberalization. The
bundled model, where an (incumbent) NAP also incorporates the role of SP had a dominant position until
1999. The unbundling of access services allowed the appearance of SP
-
centr
ic wholesale models where the
end
-
user has a direct relation to an SP, which in turn relies on the infrastructure of one or several NAPs. This
leads to
a
solution where the SP relies on a virtualized Internet architecture gathering physical resources
from

different NAPs.

A step further into the virtualization of the Internet architecture is the role of virtual operator that provides
some form of service (e.g., connectivity coordination) but that does not have its own infrastructure to provide
the service.

Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) is the most common example

In NANs approach, neutrality is exploited to grant to the access infrastructure the features and the appeal of
a full
-
fledged network by itself, which makes available to the end
-
users a si
zeable set of services before they
register with any SP. Users are allowed to associate with the NAN for free without pre
-
emptive registration.

The User
-
centric paradigm for seamless mobility in future Internet (PERIMETER, FP7, 2008
-
2011)
considers QoE cr
iteria to provide the end
-
user with an Always Best Connected network for specific services,
achieving a kind a virtualization. It also assists the access operator in adequate resource management which
takes into consideration the end
-
user’s QoE expectation
s.


By allowing wireless local
-
loops to
expand

in a robust and scalable way, to meet the user needs, ULOOP
will give rise to an on
-
demand local
-
loop which is free of proprietary control. Moreover, it will enable the
dynamic creation of user
-
provided trust
worthy access islands which extend the coverage of existing NANs..
FP7
-
257418 ULOOP


STREP




Page
22

of
91

In addition, ULOOP will contribute to the network neutrality debate by providing a thorough analysis of the
impact in wireless related legislation.

1.2.3

Making Wireless Architectures Autonomous

Enabling the self
-
organization and automatic establishment of connectivity among involved entities, in order
to accommodate future service needs

is the core belief of BIONETS , an EU
-
funded project that gets
inspiration from biological models. BIONETS aim
s to develop truly user
-
centric Internet models, allowing
networks to naturally evolve and to become autonomous, accommodating new services and societal needs.
HAGGLE approaches the user
-
centric and autonomic perspective going beyond current network parad
igms
by exploring application
-
driven (opportunistic) message forwarding, as well as the impact of human mobility
on the network. SOCIALNETS follows the same line of thought but aiming to model networks according to
human trust behaviour. Any of the above
projects relate to autonomic networks but do not take into
consideration all the technical and commercial potential that users playing the role of providers of Internet
access may have.

ULOOP will step beyond these approaches, by enabling autonomous
user
-
provided wireless architecture
s to
develop and to profit

from users’ interaction with their social networks.

1.2.4

Expanding High Rates to the User: Wireless Broadband Access

The last decade has witnessed several revolutions in telecommunications, and espe
cially in the wireless area.
Wi
-
Fi is now almost ubiquitous, while 3G, WiMAX and LTE are or will foster broadband wireless access
without sacrificing the mobility. CARMEN
, another EU funded project,

has as main purpose to specify a
wireless mesh network
(with all nodes belonging to the same access operator) that complements existing
access technologies in a low
-
cost and
rapidly deployable

way. CODIV targets cellular and WiMAX
technologies. It aims to explore channel diversity and cooperation in order to
enable
the
high bit rates of
broadband access

across wireless infrastructures
, where the cooperative component is an enhancement of the
conventional cellular infrastructure.

A more recent development in terms of high rate and user
-
centric connectivity is

the Wi
-
Fi Direct concept,
which could on implementation revolutionise the way users and
User Equipment (UE)

interconnect. An
explosion in the number of Wi
-
Fi interconnections between UEs within the range of each other is expected
and this will give rise t
o new connectivity models, new services, and will strongly empower the end
-
user in
terms of networking services.

ULOOP is focused upon radio cooperation techniques that give the means to expand a neutral operator and
low
-
cost architecture