[83255] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Mon Aug 8 23:34:09 2005
From: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:22:55 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Gordon Cook asked:=0D
=0D
--=0D
=0D
>>How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand=0D
they better build their own infrastructure.=0D
because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the=0D
equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good=0D
execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your=0D
shareholder...never mind the public at large?<<=0D
=0D
-- =0D
=0D
Assuming you're referring to a soup-to-nuts physical layer network,=0D
building one's own infrastructure isn't a panacea, and it is not even=0D
very often a doable proposition for organizations outside of the=0D
government and for companies outside of the Fortunes.=0D
=0D
Taken to the extreme, customer owned networks, if used as the sole=0D
source of transport, defies both the type of robustness that we seek -=0D
unless multiple networks per customer are built - and the very form of=0D
inter-working demanding of any-to-any end-to-end reach.=0D
=0D
So, unless it's a situation where great economies can be achieved in=0D
support of applications that are relatively local to (or resident solely=0D
within the borders of) an enterprise, maybe it's not the end all and be=0D
all that we sometimes make it out to be. For a University and Research=0D
Consortium, fine. For a forty-state branch banking network that=0D
must reach 42,347 end points, with most of those end points producing=0D
traffic for a single T1 or T3 line, or even a GbE line over an extended=0D
distance, it would appear on the surface "not," although each point=0D
solution requires its own evaluation. Volume discounts, the degree of=0D
diversity required and security issues all come into play, to name just=0D
three areas of concern.=0D
=0D
Rather, private builds are great for spot solutions, even very large=0D
ones, that are relatively constant between two or more points when those=0D
points are, likewise, constant and not constantly being relocated. But=0D
IMO they do little in the way of extending reach beyond the borders of=0D
the enterprise. For service providers, on the other hand, it's more of a=0D
financial consideration, assessing tradeoffs against perceived future=0D
pricing trends and traffic volumes. Again, to buy, rent or build is=0D
something that can only be determined at the time of need, and based on=0D
the particulars of the enterprise or service provider.=0D
=0D
That said, the situation I addressed initially highlights a case where the=
=0D
market had already begun taking care of some of the critical needs of=0D
diversity and redundancy for the universe of North American (or at least=0D
US) users, which are now about to be trashed in order to satisfy the=0D
goals of two corporate entities.=0D
=0D
Does this make any sense? Of course not. But viewed against the backdrop=0D
of this past week's FCC releases, the trend, despite how irrational and=0D
ludicrous it may appear, is ringing clear as day. And so it goes ...=0D
---=0D
=0D
Frank A. Coluccio=0D
DTI Consulting Inc.=0D
347-526-6788 Mobile=0D
frank@fttx.org=0D
=0D
----------=0D
=0D
On Mon Aug 8 16:17 , Gordon Cook sent:=0D
=0D
=0D
So although we have the technology to build networks controlled at=0D
the edge and networks that are less subject to failure,=0D
the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist that=0D
we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies.=0D
Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities of=0D
economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the=0D
switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of=0D
failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco=0D
router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever=0D
failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber.=0D
Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad.=0D
=0D
How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at=0D
infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted.=0D
=0D
How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand=0D
they better build their own infrastructure.=0D
because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the=0D
equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good=0D
execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your=0D
shareholder...never mind the public at large?=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ=0D
08618 USA=0D
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook@cookreport.com=0D
Subscription=0D
info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where is=0D
New Wealth=0D
Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml=0D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote:=0D
=0D
>=0D
> All,=0D
>=0D
> Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially=0D
> interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of=0D
> the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that=0D
> I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be=0D
> to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in=0D
> both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for=0D
> redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport=0D
> layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed.=0D
>=0D
> These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of=0D
> routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in=0D
> order to=0D
> allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to kick in..=
=0D
> In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that=0D
> business=0D
> continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention=0D
> service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee-=0D
> well,=0D
> where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How=0D
> long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will=0D
> become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either=0D
> business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to=0D
> concentration of powers?=0D
>=0D
> While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their=0D
> services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of=0D
> places, it=0D
> is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from=0D
> disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is=0D
> especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However,=0D
> the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop=0D
> providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back=0D
> atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering.=0D
>=0D
> But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon,=0D
> SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are still possible.=0D
>=0D
> Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of=0D
> physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once=0D
> integration is completed users will find themselves riding over=0D
> systems=0D
> that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set=0D
> of NMS=0D
> constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher=0D
> levels in the stack.=0D
>=0D
> frank@coluccio.net=0D
> ------=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>> Eight or nine people I had=0D
>> talked to thought they had geographically distinct=0D
>> ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable=0D
>> when the second cut took it down hard.=0D
>>=0D
>=0D
> Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy=0D
> seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into=0D
> their contracts?=0D
>=0D
> Or was this type of service "good enough"?=0D
>=0D
> --Michael Dillon=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
=0D
Frank A. Coluccio=0D
DTI Consulting Inc.=0D
212-587-8150 Office=0D
347-526-6788 Mobile=0D
=0D
=0D
