Level 3 statement concerning 2/23 events (nothing to see, move along)

Pete Templin petelists at templin.org
Wed Feb 25 15:17:30 UTC 2004


If an IP-based system lets you see the status of the 23 hospitals in San 
Antonio graphically, perhaps overlaid with near-real-time traffic 
conditions, I'd rather use it as primary and telephone as secondary.

Counting on it?  No.  Gaining usability from it?  You betcha.

Brian Knoblauch wrote:

> 	If you're counting on IP (a "best attempt" protocol) for critical
> data, you've got a serious design flaw in your system...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of Pete
> Templin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:10
> To: Colin Neeson
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Level 3 statement concerning 2/23 events (nothing to see, move
> along)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure no one died as a result?  My hobby is volunteering as a 
> firefighter and EMT.  If Level3's network sits between a dispatch center 
> or mobile data terminal and a key resource, it could be a factor 
> (hospital status website, hazardous materials action guide, VoIP link 
> that didn't reroute because the control plane was happy but the 
> forwarding plane was sad, etc.).
> 
> And if the problem could happen to another network tomorrow but could be 
> prevented or patched, wouldn't inquiring minds want to know?  Your life 
> might be more interesting when the fit hits the shan if you have the 
> same vulnerability.
> 
> Colin Neeson wrote:
> 
> 
>>Because, in the the grand scale scheme of things, it's really not that
>>important.
>>
>>No one died because of it, the normal, everyday events of the world 
>>went
>>on,
>>unaffected by a Level 3 outage...
>>
>>Might be nice to know what happened, but my life will certainly not be
>>less interesting by not having that knowledge...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> This message was scanned by GatewayDefender
> 9:13:43 AM ET - 2/25/2004
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> This message was scanned by GatewayDefender
> 9:25:39 AM ET - 2/25/2004
> 
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list