[113477] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Fiber cut in SF area
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (chris.ranch@nokia.com)
Mon Apr 13 15:24:19 2009
From: <chris.ranch@nokia.com>
To: <beckman@angryox.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:16:43 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904131342270.33425@nog.angryox.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Peter Beckman [mailto:beckman@angryox.com] wrote:
>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:19 AM
>To: Dylan Ebner
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: Fiber cut in SF area
>
>On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Dylan Ebner wrote:
>
>> It will be easier to get more divergence than secure all the=20
>> manholes in the country.
>
>I still think skipping the securing of manholes and access=20
>points in favor of active monitoring with offsite access is a=20
>better solution. =20
The only thing missing from your plan was a cost analysis. Cost of each, p=
lus operational costs, * however many of each type. How much would that be=
?
Then amortize that out to our bills. Extra credit: would you pay for it?
Chris=
