[136875] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Weekend Gedankenexperiment - The Kill Switch
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Sat Feb 5 23:57:04 2011
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 20:51:56 -0800
In-Reply-To: <9FCDBED3-FA1E-47F2-8939-A083B1CA0E2B@cisco.com>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com>,
<dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=20
> > Back in the '70s, I always heard "survive hostile battlefield
> conditions" and never heard anyone talk about comms survival of a
> nuclear event, but I wasn't in any interesting conversations, such as
> in front of funding agencies...
>=20
> To survive an EMP, electronics needs some fancy circuitry. I've never
> worked with a bit of equipment that had it. It would therefore have to
> have been through path redundancy.
It was designed to be robust but it wasn't designed to survive nuclear
war. There WERE some networks that were designed to survive, though, so
maybe some have confused them. I think what I hear seems to confuse
MILNET with MILSTAR where MILNET was the military portion of the
Internet (what has eventually evolved into NIPRNet) and MILSTAR which is
a satellite network designed to be nuclear survivable. When it
absolutely positively has to get there.
