|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: spare fibers
If you're referring to the National Security Council (NSC) or the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (PCIPB) and the ISP-related working groups they put together (which Avi reported on at NANOG) when you say "they" then you should know that they are looking at those sorts of things and they're working on building a simulator/test-bed. It just wasn't part of the charters for the WGs. They're looking at a lot of different issues because they understand there aren't any silver bullets. Hence the working groups... hence the long set of questions that someone else pointed to... hence some of the other projects they're working on... they want feedback. They want to understand as many aspects of the various problems as possible. BUT there are also a LOT of different sets of "they" out there, so try to be specific. Regards, Kelly J. On Jun 16, 7:42pm, Daniel Golding wrote: > Subject: RE: Re: spare fibers * *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 *> > > > * >-- End of excerpt from Daniel Golding
|