Risk of Internet collapse grows
Stephen J. Wilcox
steve at telecomplete.co.uk
Thu Nov 28 14:45:48 UTC 2002
Maybe, but to be fair the Internet is vulnerable in certain areas (particularly
within individual networks) and is not built to its original intentions (well
meshed).. and thats not "our fault", thats the fault of it going commercial and
the need to keep costs down.
This returns to a different point that with providers offering ever crazier
deals to get business they have to cut back somewhere and that somewhere is in
their infrastructure costs and reduced redundancy.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> >> 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