[135746] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Connectivity status for Egypt
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Jan 28 11:27:58 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DFB34E6-C056-480C-8406-D0D5285441F6@puck.nether.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:27:02 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I have seen nation state disconnects where light is lost.=20
The question is not whether that would it (it obviously would). The =
question is whether it is important if the laser stops blinking or just =
blinks in ways that end users can't see all the YouTube, web pages, =
twitter posts, etc. that the gov't doesn't want them to see.
I think it does not matter. Censorship is censorship. (So much for =
"routing around it".)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Christopher Morrow =
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Jake Khuon <khuon@neebu.net> wrote:
>>=20
>>> I guess this begs the question of whether or not we're seeing actual
>>> layer1 going down or just the effects of mass BGP withdrawals. Are =
we
>>> seeing lights out on fibre links or just peering sessions going =
down?
>>> Both could still point to a coordinated intentional blackout by the
>>> Egyptian gov't though.
>>=20
>> out of curiousity, what's the difference though between loss of light
>> and peer shutdown? If the local gov't comes in and says: "Make the
>> internets go down", you as the op choose how to do that... NOT =
getting
>> calls from your peer for interface alarms is probably sane. You can
>> simply drop your routes, leave BGP running even and roll ...
>>=20
>> If it's clear (and it seems to be) that the issue is a
>> nation-state-decision... implementation (how it's done, no IF it's
>> done) isn't really important, is it?
>>=20
>> -chris
>>=20
>=20
