|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0211280007080.31242-100000@MrServer> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:27:09 -0500 To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> From: David Diaz <techlist@smoton.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Well, it seems the national news medias picked up on this story. How us "geniuses" re-engineered the internet into a few points that could be knocked out, killing the internet. The explanation used a bad analogy to explain it to the public. As already mentioned a lot of bad assumptions were made, and now we will be questioned based on those assumptions. There has to be a better way for us to play devil's advocate without media feedback. Happy Thanksgiving. Dave At 0:17 +0000 11/28/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Sean Donelan wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 sgorman1@gmu.edu wrote: >> > The full paper is available at: >> > >> > http://whopper.sbs.ohio-state.edu/grads/tgrubesi/survive.pdf >> > >> > password: grubesic >> > >> > It was posted on the www.cybergeography.org website with the password, >> > plus I'm sure Tony would like the feedback. >> >> Was this paper peer reviewed ? >> >> I'm interested in the problem, but this is not the paper. > >Not -the- answer but a part of perhaps. I think the paper helps in >appreciation >of the maths and processes behind the concept > >> AT&T's network is the most vulnerable? While Onyx is among the least >> vulnerable? Onyx is bankrupt, and their network is no longer in >> operation. I guess you could argue Onyx not vulnerable any more. This >> paper starts out with some bad assumptions, such as there is one NAP in a >> city, one path between cities or the marketing maps in Boardwatch are >> meaningful. > >It does mention there being more than one NAP... > >Its also highlighting a point about increased resiliency through >mesh redundancy >and it does acknowledge differences of scale. > >> Until we figure out how to collect some meaningful starting data, we >> can't draw these types of conclusions. > >And therein lies the problem! Plenty of room for theorising tho! > >Steve -- David Diaz dave@smoton.net [Email] pagedave@smoton.net [Pager] www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development] Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |