|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Re: spare fibers
Hahaha...SBGP...Praise you my son. You make very, very, VERY valid points... You made me smile. =] On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Daniel Golding wrote: > > Hmm. How many points of disruption, backhoes, chainsaws, hooligans, etc, > would be needed to do this in the US and Canada? 20? 30? Sean Donelan on > a specially outfitted Segway? (just picture it...) > > I suspect that might be a better source of inquiry for our friends in > the federal government, then, say, SBGP. > > Might be useful for the Powers That Be to actually do a simulation of > this, and see how far they can get. > > - Daniel Golding > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of Frank Coluccio > > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 6:43 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Re: spare fibers > > > > > > > > Almost without exception, "ring topology" implies a > > single-carrier doing physical > > layer provisioning and support. In the case where multiple > > points are under > > attack in a concerted effort to knock out service (including > > the failover > > capabilities), it's either an "inside job" or, at the least, > > one where > > intelligence relating to individual SONET backbones and rings > > has been obtained > > from various sources for the purpose of thwarting such _self-healing_ > > capabilities that are usually afforded by SONET/SDH. > > > > In the not too distant past (during the pre-sonet and early > > SONET days when N+1 > > automatic protection switching was used instead of > > counter-rotating recovery > > schemes) we saw this occur, albeit infrequently, during > > periods of labor unrest > > and other tense forms of situations relating to competition > > (where folks feared > > for their jobs) along the NY-NJ corridor and in certain parts > > of California, to > > name just two that I recall off the top of my head. Until > > recently (post 9-11), > > however, it was hardly a matter of overwhelming concern. > > Today it is becoming > > more so a matter of heightened concern. Meshing through the > > use of diverse > > providers' facilities may prove to be the ultimate means of > > protection, with the > > proviso being that those providers are not all sharing the > > same physical routes. > > fwiw. > > > > FAC > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Daniel and all, > > > Yes, multiple fiber in multiple conduits, traveling > > multiple paths is > > > the > > > best way to insure something's going to have connectivity. > > > Ring topology is what I've seen mostly for best protection, > > if something > > > goes down, restoration takes milliseconds and is automatic. > > Worst case, is > > > some contractor digs up the place where your fiber enters > > your building and > > > severs everything....not much you can do about that kind of outage. > > > > > > > > > At 20:41 6/16/02 +0200, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Hi blitz, > > > > > > > >I think that you talk about multiple outage in the > > Telefonica Network > > > >in Spain cause by sabotage. (48 fibers in 4 points at the same > > > >time) > > > > > > > >I see ok the interest of the ministry, is necessary to assure that > > > >outages don't affect to the national infraestruture. > > > > > > > >In our case we build our network over diverse companys > > with diverse > > > >path in their fiber network. I see ok, that all companys > > that operate > > > >basic services do it and they will have backup and emergency plans. > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Daniel > > > >Intelideas > > > > > > > > > > > >On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, blitz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Spanish ministry of science and technology has asked > > > > > telecommunications companies to activate a backup > > plan in the > > > > > case of such emergencies in future. > > > > > > > > > > Spare fibers in the same duct ;-? > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't sound like it would be much protection from "backhoe > > > > > fade"...heh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|