[42854] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Points of Failure (was Re: National infrastructure asset)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Grant A. Kirkwood)
Mon Sep 24 15:02:50 2001
Message-ID: <3BAF87E0.58942969@virtical.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:22:08 -0700
From: "Grant A. Kirkwood" <grant@virtical.net>
Reply-To: grant@virtical.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Bob Bownes wrote:
> > But there was a point in time when taking out a certain parking garage
> > in Va could have caused us a very great deal of difficulty. But I'd say
> > we are past that, for the most part.
>
> Are we?
>
> When 25 Broadway failed, approximately 1% of the global Internet
> routing table also disappeared. Which I would guess qualifies it
> as a "major" hub.
But does that mean that X number of sites were unreachable, or that
there were simply Y number fewer routes to X sites? (Excluding those
*directly* affected, ie; those *in* 25 Broadway)
> Verizon still has 100,000 lines out of service, and only now
> begun to restore service to "small" businesses.
Yes, but my understanding was that we were referring to IP traffic. POTS
doesn't exactly have a built-in routing protocol.
> A couple of years ago a fiber cut in Ohio disrupted about 20% of
> the Internet routing table.
But again, does this mean that 20% of the Internet was unreachable, or
that there were 20% fewer routes to a given number of (hopefully
multihomed) sites?
No, this question is not rhetorical... I simply don't have any imperical
evidence to look at that could adequately answer this question.
Grant
--
Grant A. Kirkwood - grant@virtical.net
Chief Technology Officer - Virtical Solutions, Inc.
http://www.virtical.net/
