[48768] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Re: spare fibers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Golding)
Sun Jun 16 19:40:49 2002
From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@sockeye.com>
To: "'Frank Coluccio'" <fcoluccio@dticonsulting.com>,
<blitz@macronet.net>
Cc: <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:42:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1024267351.201fcoluccio@dticonsulting.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hmm. How many points of disruption, backhoes, chainsaws, hooligans, etc,
would be needed to do this in the US and Canada? 20? 30? Sean Donelan on
a specially outfitted Segway? (just picture it...)
I suspect that might be a better source of inquiry for our friends in
the federal government, then, say, SBGP.
Might be useful for the Powers That Be to actually do a simulation of
this, and see how far they can get.
- Daniel Golding
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On
> Behalf Of Frank Coluccio
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 6:43 PM
> To: blitz@macronet.net
> Cc: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Re: spare fibers
>
>
>
> Almost without exception, "ring topology" implies a
> single-carrier doing physical
> layer provisioning and support. In the case where multiple
> points are under
> attack in a concerted effort to knock out service (including
> the failover
> capabilities), it's either an "inside job" or, at the least,
> one where
> intelligence relating to individual SONET backbones and rings
> has been obtained
> from various sources for the purpose of thwarting such _self-healing_
> capabilities that are usually afforded by SONET/SDH.
>
> In the not too distant past (during the pre-sonet and early
> SONET days when N+1
> automatic protection switching was used instead of
> counter-rotating recovery
> schemes) we saw this occur, albeit infrequently, during
> periods of labor unrest
> and other tense forms of situations relating to competition
> (where folks feared
> for their jobs) along the NY-NJ corridor and in certain parts
> of California, to
> name just two that I recall off the top of my head. Until
> recently (post 9-11),
> however, it was hardly a matter of overwhelming concern.
> Today it is becoming
> more so a matter of heightened concern. Meshing through the
> use of diverse
> providers' facilities may prove to be the ultimate means of
> protection, with the
> proviso being that those providers are not all sharing the
> same physical routes.
> fwiw.
>
> FAC
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Daniel and all,
> > Yes, multiple fiber in multiple conduits, traveling
> multiple paths is
> > the
> > best way to insure something's going to have connectivity.
> > Ring topology is what I've seen mostly for best protection,
> if something
> > goes down, restoration takes milliseconds and is automatic.
> Worst case, is
> > some contractor digs up the place where your fiber enters
> your building and
> > severs everything....not much you can do about that kind of outage.
> >
> >
> > At 20:41 6/16/02 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Hi blitz,
> > >
> > >I think that you talk about multiple outage in the
> Telefonica Network
> > >in Spain cause by sabotage. (48 fibers in 4 points at the same
> > >time)
> > >
> > >I see ok the interest of the ministry, is necessary to assure that
> > >outages don't affect to the national infraestruture.
> > >
> > >In our case we build our network over diverse companys
> with diverse
> > >path in their fiber network. I see ok, that all companys
> that operate
> > >basic services do it and they will have backup and emergency plans.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Daniel
> > >Intelideas
> > >
> > >
> > >On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, blitz wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The Spanish ministry of science and technology has asked
> > > > telecommunications companies to activate a backup
> plan in the
> > > > case of such emergencies in future.
> > > >
> > > > Spare fibers in the same duct ;-?
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't sound like it would be much protection from "backhoe
> > > > fade"...heh
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
