[88090] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cyber-redundancy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Hannigan)
Fri Jan 20 01:29:25 2006
From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@world.std.com>
To: sean@donelan.com (Sean Donelan)
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:18:09 -0500 (EST)
Cc: sgorman1@gmu.edu, nanog@nanog.org (NANOG list)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0601191730140.28106@clifden.donelan.com> from "Sean Donelan" at Jan 19, 2006 05:34:17 PM
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 sgorman1@gmu.edu wrote:
> > Agree that a level of security is required, but the real value is in
> > customers like banks knowing where their fiber is, so when they lease
> > service for a back up provider they know it is not in the same ditch.
>
> Does the bank actually need that information? Or does there need to
> be a way for the two providers to do conflict detection between their
> design layout groups? You don't need copies of all provider's fiber
> maps to do conflict detection for a particular group of circuits.
I think - as both of you both know, this has little to do with security
vs. being a savvy network consumer and asking for what you need to make
your purchase. Be careful with the hyperbole, you'll create a new box or
something.
-M<
