Risk of Internet collapse grows

Stephen J. Wilcox steve at telecomplete.co.uk
Thu Nov 28 00:17:24 UTC 2002

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 sgorman1 at 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!


More information about the NANOG mailing list