See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/221282362

A Rural Implementation of a 52 Node Mixed Wireless Mesh Network in Macha,

Zambia

Conference Paper · December 2009

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-12701-4_4 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS
28 259

3 authors, including:

Jonathan D. Backens Gertjan van Stam

Christopher Newport University University of Applied Sciences Windesheim
12 PUBLICATIONS 148 CITATIONS 202 PUBLICATIONS 1,487 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gertjan van Stam on 12 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Rural Implementation of a 52 Node Mixed
Wireless Mesh Network in Macha, Zambia

Jonathan Backens1 , Gregory Mweemba2 , and Gertjan van Stam3

1
Old Dominion University, Norfolk VA 23529, USA,
jback006@[Link]
2
LinkNet, Macha, Zambia
[Link]@[Link]
[Link]
3
Macha Works, Macha, Zambia
[Link]@[Link]
[Link]

Abstract. In spite of increasing international and academic attention,

there remains many challenges facing real world implementations of de-
veloping technologies. There has been considerable hype behind Wire-
less Mesh Networking as the ubiquitous solution for rural ICT in the
developing world. In this paper, we present the real world rural mesh
network implementation in the village of Macha, Zambia and draw both
performance conclusions as well as overall experiential conclusions. The
purpose of this paper is to introduce and analyze our low cost solution
and extrapolate future trends for rural ICT implementations in Zambia.

Key words: Wireless Mesh Network, Rural ICT, Implementation Test

Case

1 Introduction
The community owned and run LinkNet Multipurpose Cooperative Society ser-
vices the rural community of Macha, Zambia with innovative communication
technology and locally trained talent [8]. Since inception its model for connect-
ing rural Zambia with ICT services has been to empower the local community to
run and maintain a locally built, locally maintained and locally managed inter-
net infrastructure based on wireless communication technologies. Utilizing only
local talent and supplies, the Macha Network has provided not only a powerful
and inspiring local ICT project, but has laid the foundation for a comprehensive
test bed for other rural implementations. This real world solution consisting of a
network of 52 Mesh Nodes and 99 total active wireless service providing devices
remains one of the largest locally run rural networks in Africa.
In order to understand the conditions of Macha Zambia and a bit of the
demands for ICT, it is important to consider the overall environment. Zambia
as a country is the 17th lowest country on the UNDP’s Human Development
Index [3]. It consists primarily of agricultural workers with an average income
2 Backens et al.

of about $1USD/Day. The village of Macha is located in the Choma District

of Southern Zambia, in a semi arid flat farming area. It remains 70 km from
the nearest tarred road or landline phone. Currently there is a population of
≥ 135.000 persons within an 35 km radius[13]. As far as traditional mobile
communications, GSM service arrived in December 2006 but as with much of
rural Africa outages are common. Currently internet connectivity is available via
VSAT, GSM EDGE and Short Wave although all are subject to cost, weather
and power fluctuations(see Section 2.3 for more on challenges).
The main feature of Macha is the Macha Mission Hospital(MMH) and
Malaria Institute at Macha(MIAM)[4]. These institutions provide health care
for the greater Macha area as well as being the primary employer of educated
professionals and medical researchers.
LinkNet(currently structured under Macha Works) began providing broad-
band internet service in 2006 to hospital professionals’ residences, the MIAM
clinic/lab and the local community center for an internet cafe. The motivation
behind the Macha Network is nearly as diverse as its client base. The MIAM
research laboratory and offices use the network for research, correspondence and
data management, the Macha Mission Hospital utilizes similar resources in ad-
dition to e-health advances such as the Zambian Ministry of Health SmartCare
program for digital health records. In addition, the local community exploits the
Internet for e-learning with several community members attending online uni-
versity courses [15]. Also, local farmers are discovering the power of the internet
in understanding crop diversification[17].
This paper provides an overview of the entire Macha Network, benchmark
testing of one of it implemented mesh networks, analysis of the viability of our
current open source WIFI based mesh solutions in rural environments and con-
clusions about our implementation including challenges This paper builds on
the foundational work by Matthee et al. in [14] where the Macha Network and
vision for rural ICT development was first published. In this paper we illustrate
the progress that has been made in the development and management of a large
rural wireless network. In addition we extend conclusions drawn by the tech-
nical discussion of the Macha Network by Backens et al. in [9] to draw some
conclusions on the feasibility of our solution in other deployments.
The paper is organized as follows, In Section II the overall technical imple-
mentation of the Macha Network is presented with a focus on the Wireless Mesh
Network performance. Then in Section III we look at the challenges and lessons
learned from our approach. Section IV we will discuss the future of our rural ICT
development model expansion. Finally, Section V will draw conclusions about
our rural ICT implementation model and subsequent 52 Node Wireless Mesh
Network.

2 Network Description
The Macha Network employs a diverse group of low cost and readily available
equipment for providing network coverage to the 100-150 daily network users.
 Rural Implementation in Macha, Zambia 3

MIAM MMH Other

Freifunk Mesh Nodes 11 0 14
Open-Mesh Nodes 0 27 0
Open WRT APs 8 17 4
Linksys Firmware APs 10 2 0
X-lin (directional) 0 0 6
TOTAL MESH NODES 52
TOTAL APs 41
TOTAL Linksys WRT54Gx 66
TOTAL WIRELESS DEVICES 99
Table 1. Wireless Devices in Macha Network

These users and the subsequently associated networks are broken up into three
basic groups: MIAM Campus, MMH residential housing and everyone else. As
shown in Table 1, the Macha Network utilizes mostly Linksys WRT54GL wireless
routers flashed with OpenWrt [6] based firmware (Freifunk[2] for Mesh and DD-
WRT[1] for Access Points). An Open Mesh network is deployed within the hos-
pital staff housing and consists of 27 Open-Mesh Mini-Router[5] nodes running
its own firmware. In contrast, the hybrid mesh nodes consist of two WRT54GL
boxes wired together with one serving as a mesh backbone node and the other
as an Access Point (AP). These hybrid nodes can be seen in Fig. 1. The combi-
nation nodes are employed within the MIAM campus and are placed inside each
residence in a unique indoor-to-indoor deployment method to provide coverage
for the entire complex. Thus each house within the MIAM campus is outfitted
with a hybrid mesh node and each house in the MMH campus is outfitted with an
Open Mesh box. These nodes are deployed regardless of usage by the household
so that overall coverage can be achieved. This also has the benefit of allowing
easy connection of new users if at a later time the need arises.

Fig. 1. MIAM Hybrid Node: WMN + AP

Each of the three primary networks are fed from a central tower within in
the MIAM complex. This central tower is located next to the IT Room which
monitors and manages the network as well as maintains the gateway connection
to the internet via VSAT. The gateway is connected via C-Band VSAT with CIR
4 Backens et al.

of 128 kbps burstable to 1 Mbps and a Ku-Band VSAT with 32 kbps burstable
to 256 kbps.
It should also be noted that in addition to the WRT54GL boxes, the Macha
Networks also utilizes locally available X-Lin outdoor wireless APs with direc-
tional antennas to feed the different networks from the central mast. Although
readily available in Lusaka, these devices are imported into Zambia cheaply and
have no known English benchmarks or technical data sheets.

2.1 Performance Conclusions

The Macha Mesh Network at MIAM represents a very typical 11 node Wireless
Mesh Network deployment following the Meraka DIY guide [7] and the previously
listed hardware. The primary concerns of the network was behavior in terms of
latency and overall throughput. Since nodes were supplying the primary means
of communications to many of these points it was essential that a adequate
throughput and latency be maintained across all nodes in order to assure some
level of QoS. Initial testing show in Figure 2. revealed that the overall latency was
not affected in a great deal by the hop count from the gateway. In fact nearly all
nodes experienced between 5-10ms of delay: a value well within the required QoS
for most applications. It should be noted however that occasionally nodes would
experience severe latency increases for brief periods. These were attributed to
both the dynamic nature of the spectrum as well as the overall inefficiency of
the OLSR routing of the Freifunk nodes.
In contrast to relatively promising latency performance, the MIAM network’s
throughput was shown to decrease at a better than linear rate inversely propor-
tional to the number of hops away from the gateway(as seen in figure 2(b)).
Although testing was done in a saturated worst-case network and typical perfor-
mance can be markedly better, these results clearly show the limitations of our
current wireless mesh network solutions in terms of network size per gateway.
Although there have been better performances shown in laboratory tests with
OLSR based wireless mesh networks in [11], the harsh real world conditions in
rural Zambia have proved a limiting factor for our indoor to indoor approach.
Clearly broadband over indoor-to-indoor deployed mesh networks is not pos-
sible under our current technology constraints in the rural environment. However
reasonable data rates are achievable for basic network usage by local users. This
conclusion is pivotal in the argument for continued use of these hybrid mesh
nodes in indoor to indoor deployments. In addition we are spurred on by the
promising developments in mesh technology such as the development of better
routing protocols such as B.A.T.M.A.N. which in lab tests have shown marked
improvement over our OLSR approach [10].
In addition to overall performance, a more thorough analysis was conducted
to compare the traditionally used 802.11b with DSSS to the 802.11g with OFDM
to perhaps gain insight into additional throughput and latency factors. The ini-
tial testing was a simple comparison of 802.11b and 802.11g modes of operation
based on similar static data rates. It was clear that although 802.11g employs
the interference reducing OFDM modulation scheme and higher possible bit
 Rural Implementation in Macha, Zambia 5
15 3
Latency
STDEV 2.5

Latency to Gateway(ms)
10 2

% Packet Loss
1.5

5 1

0.5

0 0
1 2 3 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Hop Count Distance Hop Count Distance

(a) MIAM Mesh Latency

DownLink Uplink
6 6
Downlink Uplink
STDEV STDEV
Throughput to Gateway(Mbps)

Throughput to Gateway(Mbps)
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
1 2 3 1 2 3
Hop Count Distance Hop Count Distance

(b) MIAM Mesh throughput w/ default settings

Fig. 2. MAIM Mesh Performance

rates, that in a mesh environment these techniques were ineffective. In fact the
802.11b’s DSSS modulation was shown to be far more stable and have a higher
throughput with lower jitter than 802.11g OFDM in a Freifunk mesh deploy-
ment. 802.11gs higher throughput rates of 54Mbps were unachievable due to
unacceptably high interference. (SNR too low to achieve connection in mesh
configuration) A more detailed analysis is presented by Backens et al. in [9].
Although these performance conclusions highlight the considerable room
for improvement in current mesh techniques, practically the limiting factor in
network remains the Gateway connection under current conditions. The pro-
hibitively high cost of our limited bandwidth(1Mbps connection) and its un-
avoidable latency(≥400ms) remain the dominating characteristic of our network.
However, from a user perspective the results of the Macha Network implementa-
tion and testing was encouraging. The network provides a usable and easily de-
ployable solution for rural implementations. For small to medium sized mesh net-
works, the indoor to indoor model is possible, but can be greatly improved with
better routing techniques, multiple gateways and adaptive modulation schemes.
6 Backens et al.

2.2 Training

One of the surprising conclusions discovered throughout the LinkNet imple-

mentation in Macha is that installation and configuration of the initial wireless
mesh technology is the smallest effort in developing a sustainable rural wireless
network both in terms of cost and time. The dynamic nature of the wireless
spectrum, the inconsistent performance of low cost hardware and difficulties of
remote management combine to make create continual technical attention. How-
ever the greatest time and cost consumer remains in the training of local talent
to undertake these tasks.
Simply stated, rural environments in underdeveloped countries by their very
nature have little or no locally knowledgeable talent in the areas of wireless com-
munication and networking. Rural talent almost universally has challenges with
advanced topics such as protocol stacks, wireless propagation and troubleshoot-
ing processes. Topics that take time to understand and master even in developed
countries. These same challenges have been faced in similar rural wireless mesh
projects in India [16] and South Africa [12]. Therefore holistic training in Macha
has been implemented though both the development of LinkNet Information
Technology Academy and extensive self-motivated study. Originally LinkNet
employed exclusively self-motivated study by providing apt future technicians
and engineers free internet access and refurbished hardware to learn on. The
initial results were very promising as exposure to the vast learning resources of
the Internet and a few helpful practice parts produced 4 well qualified computer
technicians. However as more wireless networking was introduced into Macha
and specifically mesh networking, it became obvious that formal training would
be required to fill in the holes in self-study education.
LinkNet takes advantage of a bevy of interim knowledge as scholars and IT
experts visit Macha to supplement the core networking and computer main-
tenance coursework. This education has drastically increased the numbers of
qualified technicians and helped improve the wireless expertise of the local tal-
ent. In addition now only occasional technical issues arise that are beyond the
knowledge of local talent.
Our experience has shown that clearly, a locally trained workforce capable
of managing a substantial wireless mesh network is possible but may require
months of training and experience.

2.3 Challenges

The Macha implementation has faced many challenges with both equipment
and environment. One of the most detrimental obstacles in rural Zambia re-
mains the prohibitive cost of VSAT internet. Current LinkNet allocates nearly
2.000 USD/Month for its VSAT connections which are almost constantly satu-
rated with traffic. Increasingly difficulties are foreseeable in the near future as
regardless of funding, there is becoming a shortage of available channels and
bandwidth on existing satellites. Thus the most expensive Internet in the world
is becoming even more so.
 Rural Implementation in Macha, Zambia 7

Similar to other rural African projects, Macha struggles with regular power
issues. Weekly power outages, spikes, brownouts, sags and lightning strikes are
infrequent in most developed areas, but are commonplace in rural Zambia. Often
these can result in unusual network behavior as equipment put in unstable states
as well as high rates of equipment failure. One such example is the 27 node Open-
Mesh deployment which fails to recover from certain low power conditions and
requires manual resetting each node. This is a labor intensive task during raining
season since it can occur on a daily basis.
Another common problem is the lack of quality equipment. Since many com-
mercial and high-end products are not available or affordable, the Macha network
has been built with locally available products which have a wide range of quality
and documentation. One example of this are the X-Lin WIFI directional APs
which are non-upgradable and are non-interoperable with Linksys WRT54Gx’s
even though both claim IEEE 802.11 compliance.

3 Future Work
LinkNet under the Macha Works oversight is committed to expanding ICT de-
ployments to over 10 rural communities in 2010. This requires significant stan-
dardizing of the design and large scale role out of hybrid mesh networks. We are
moving beyond proof of concept and evaluation and into production. In addition,
the focus is moving from multi-specialist research in wireless mesh networking
(primarily expatriate initiated) into inter-disciplinary research. As we have dis-
covered the broad extent of influence rural ICT and community networks have
in Macha, we are left seeking to integrate multi-specialist research, with devel-
opment truly out of local need.
The many obstacles in local talent training and the required time investment
has lead LinkNet to attempt the deskilling of mesh network roll out and mainte-
nance engineering. This simplification would allow for quicker deployments and
correlate with our values of empowering locally trained rural talent. Furthermore
we are partnering with national African research and education institutions to
develop further research areas.
Lastly, we are joining in the development of rural community ICT business
models. This is currently a hot topic of research within the development commu-
nity and Macha Works is seeking to help provide a equal contribution funding
model.

4 Conclusions
The Hybrid Macha Mesh Network can provide a significant contribution to the
current knowledge base of rural wireless mesh implementations. Specifically we
have shown that a locally talent driven solution can be found to meet basic
internet needs using mesh technology. Although the mesh network does require
considerable attention and care in setup and maintenance, it is a viable current
 8 Backens et al.

solution for low-bandwidth networks. Simply put, rural indoor to indoor Hybrid
Wireless Mesh Network are a workable solution, but one has to be aware of its
limitations under current technology. These technology constraints are a much
needed area of current research and it is hoped that the lessons learned from the
Macha Network Implementation will serve as a motivation for future research.
Unfortunately, test bed solutions produced in laboratories and Universities are
far too often not realized in real world rural African environments inundated with
unique challenges. Thus there remains a great need for test cases like Macha to
be included in the academic research community.

References
1. [Link]. Available online at [Link]
2. Freifunk. Available online at [Link]
3. Human development indices: A statistical update 2008. Available at
[Link]
4. Malaria Institute at Macha. Available online at [Link]
accessed 2009.
5. Open-mesh. Available online at [Link]
6. Openwrt: Wireless freedom. Available online at [Link]
7. D.I.Y. Mesh Guide. online, 2007. Available at [Link]
8. LinkNet Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Limited, 2009. Available online at
[Link]
9. Jonathan D. Backens, Min Song, and Lutz Engels. Rural Wireless Mesh Networks
in Africa: An Experiential Study. In CATA, pages 128–133, 2009.
10. D. Johnson, N. Ntlatlapa, and C. Aichele. A simple pragmatic approach to mesh
routing using BATMAN. In 2nd IFIP International Symposium on Wireless Com-
munications and Information Technology in Developing Countries, CSIR, Pretoria,
South Africa, pages 6–7, 2008.
11. David Johnson and Gerhard Hancke. Comparison of two routing metrics in OLSR
on a grid based mesh network. Ad Hoc Networks, 7(2):374 – 387, 2009.
12. D.L. Johnson and K. Roux. Building rural wireless networks: Lessons learnt and
future directions. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM workshop on Wireless networks
and systems for developing regions, pages 17–22. ACM New York, NY, USA, 2008.
13. LinkNet. LinkNet Masterplan: Communications for Rural Zambia. Available:
[Link] 2007.
14. KW Matthee, G. Mweemba, AV Pais, G. Van Stam, and M. Rijken. Bringing
Internet connectivity to rural Zambia using a collaborative approach. Proc. 2nd
IEEE/ACM ICTD, 2007.
15. A. Pais. eLearning for rural communities. 2007. available online:
[Link]
16. Sonesh Surana, Rabin Patra, Sergiu Nedevschi, Manuel Ramos, Lakshminarayanan
Subramanian, Yahel Ben-David, and Eric Brewer. Beyond pilots: keeping rural
wireless networks alive. In NSDI’08: Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Symposium
on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pages 119–132, Berkeley, CA,
USA, 2008. USENIX Association.
17. G. Van Stam. Case: Sunflower farming. Internet changes Rural Africa, 2007.
available online: [Link]

View publication stats