[185520] in North American Network Operators' Group
Satellites and submarine cables
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Mon Oct 26 20:31:17 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Since the weekend's list problems seem to have died down. How about some
infrastructure news.
http://spacenews.com/from-russia-some-unofficial-assurance-about-lurking-luch-satellites-intent/
From Russia, Unofficial Assurance about Intent of Lurking Luch Satellite
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/world/europe/russian-presence-near-undersea-cables-concerns-us.html
Russian Ships Near Data Cables Are Too Close for U.S. Comfort
This seems to be a case of "I know you can see me, and I can see you."
Its not new. Multiple countries have demostrated submarine and
satellite capabilities over the decades ... more submarines than
satellites. But generally everyone has more to lose than gain. What is
different is the increasingly public rhetoric.
Occasional satellites or submarine cable disruptions haven't had long
term impact on the US mainland due to US connectivity options.
Carriers serving the US mainland regularly have outages and repair
submarine cable and satellite problems. But countries with less
connectivity options could get pushed around more, along the lines of
"Make him an offer he can't refuse." Some of the public rhetoric may be
for allies.
