North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: BBN (GTE) Suffers another major power problem.
On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, John Curran wrote: > At 11:39 8/8/97, Robert T. Nelson wrote: > > >If you're in a 24x7, customer-driven market, you should have either: > > > >a) enough go-juice (via fuel contractor) to go until the grid is on-line > > Did you read the previous email from jhawk? There is an > extremely large generator at one of the affected facilities > (read: cogeneration plant) but no amount of fuel helps if > the plant is damaged in the explosion. I have dug through my nanog mail, and I don't see that. If I didn't look hard enough, I apologize. (I did go through the last 2 days of mail) /Power outages/ are one thing, **exploding power plants** is a bit different story. That it something that is considerably more difficult (and expensive as Sean points out) to prepare for and/or prevent. (I wouldn't have made the comment I did had I known /this/). I like, Sean, would have trouble investing (today) in a company that had that level of engineering redundancy. On the other hand, a day in the not too distant future will require that. As more and more companies come to rely on the Internet like they rely on the PSTN, we will be expected to have bomb-resistant networks. (not bomb-proof, mind you), and we will have to be compensated for this level of redundancy. This will day will come as we place more financial transactions on the 'Net. This brings us to a point of "no net = no income". I don't expect that any company connected to the Internet who is not performing a large amount of monetary transactions will want to pay for that level of redundancy. Furthermore, this outage was not a backbone PoP, and companies I describe above would probably elect to connect to a backbone node. Rob Nelson [email protected]