Risk of Internet collapse grows
techlist at smoton.net
Thu Nov 28 14:27:09 UTC 2002
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
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 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
>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
>It does mention there being more than one NAP...
>Its also highlighting a point about increased resiliency through
>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!
dave at smoton.net [Email]
pagedave at smoton.net [Pager]
www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons
More information about the NANOG