NYSE

Tue Sep 21 15:31:15 UTC 2004

So, that would be a another conduit sitting in the same right of way, and this is supposed to make it "completely independent".  Last time I checked a backhoe treated all conduits the same.  Not trying to shoot the messanger jsut trying to make a point.

Points of entry is different than the number of pipes.  The biggest single problem in the security of these networks is physical diversity, at least in my biased point of view.  There are six different sets of right of ways in Manhattan and forty something fiber providers, but no one seems to fess up when they are not offering redundancy but just another pipe in the same conduit.  Do the math and you see the problem.  It is not just a SFTI problem but a generic problem.  Just worrisome that it appears that SFTI does not see it as a problem, or worse view at as a problem they have solved by laying new pipe in the same conduits.

The problem rears it head in several examples where effeciency and cost savings trumps true diversity.  

----- Original Message -----
From: "Temkin, David" <temkin at sig.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:11 am
Subject: RE: RE: NYSE

> It's my understanding that 
> A) The providers of the actual ring did install "Separate" fiber for
> SFTI but I have no idea whether or not they're in new rights of 
> way -
> I'm willing to bet not
> 
> B) Reducing the points of entry into the ring reduces complexity and
> makes it much easier to recover the ring in the event of a disaster.
> Understanding that SIAC has thousands and thouands of customers
> connecting at the DS-3+ level to get data that's generated from one
> place means that you need to keep the distribution uniform.  
> Basically,it boils down to them being able to say "Our ring is up, 
> if your
> connectivity to our ring is down it's your problem" in order to 
> maintainfairness between Trading firm A that has 10 people and 
> Trading firm B
> that has 10,000 people.  
> 
> When they were maintaining separate interfaces for each customer they
> could potentially run into issues where they'd get certain larger 
> firmsback able to trade sooner than smaller ones and then you 
> create unfair
> market disadvantages. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sgorman1 at gmu.edu [mailto:sgorman1 at gmu.edu] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:40 AM
> > To: Temkin, David
> > Cc: Alen Capalik; Philip Lavine; nanog
> > Subject: Re: RE: NYSE
> > 
> > 
> > There are a few things about the SFTI set up that are a bit 
> > baffling to me.  From their website:
> > 
> > SFTI carries IP traffic over a topology of redundant, 
> > self-healing fiber-optic rings, completely independent of all 
> > other telco circuits and conduits. SFTI's design is 
> > straightforward, consolidating traffic into fewer pipes, 
> > which minimizes complexity and reduces the number of 
> > potential points of failure. 
> > 
> > What does "completely independent of all other telco circuits 
> > and conduits" mean?  Did they get their very own "new" right 
> > of ways dug out.  A certain government report listed their 
> > physical fiber provider, and they certainly are not new right 
> > of ways.  Further, I'm a bit baffled how reducing the number 
> > of pipes reduces the number of potential points of failure.  
> > Usually fewer pipes means less diversity.  A ring is nice 
> > till someone hits it in two places.  I also wonder how many 
> > of these rings are collapsed in a single conduit.  I hope 
> > someone over there is asking tough questions and are 
> > following up on getting a second physical fiber provider.  
> > I'd recommend not advertising who it this time either.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Temkin, David" <temkin at sig.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:45 am
> > Subject: RE: NYSE
> > 
> > > 
> > > You can no longer order "direct" lines to SIAC unless you have 
> an 
> > > extremely compelling reason.  Nowadays you must order a 
> > line to "SFTI"
> > > which is their Disaster-Recovery-centric service.  You are 
> correct 
> > > aboutthe connection method, but he will need to be specific 
> and 
> > > understandthat he wants to connect to SFTI and not just "SIAC"
> > > directly anymore.
> > > 
> > > See: https://sfti.siac.com/sfti/index.jsp  for more details.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-nanog at merit.edu 
> > [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf 
> > > > Of Alen Capalik
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:20 PM
> > > > To: Philip Lavine
> > > > Cc: nanog
> > > > Subject: Re: NYSE
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:36:16AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > If I where to connect to SIAC thru a SONNET ring who's
> > > > would it be? Is
> > > > > it private or public?
> > > > 
> > > > They use any provider (Verizon, MCI, AT&T and ConEd 
> > Comm.), however 
> > > > ConED Comm. is their primary backbone provider.  So, 
> > here's how you 
> > > > go about it.  You order a line (DS-1, DS-3, 100Mb/s, Gig, 
> > whatever) 
> > > > from any of the providers you use (if I were you I would 
> > use either 
> > > > Verizon or ConEd Comm, I can give you the number for ConEd 
> Comm. 
> > > > head sales person).  You contact SIAC, and you start the 
> > paperwork 
> > > > to get your network connected into their backbone SONET.  
> > Once you 
> > > > get permit numbers, you have the provider drop a line 
> > into one of 5 
> > > > data centers around NY area, and SIAC gives you a port on 
> one of 
> > > > their Juniper Routers.  They also give you a VLAN setup 
> > requirements 
> > > > so you can configure your border switch/router.
> > > > The line is owned by you.  SIAC only gives you a port on 
> their 
> > > > routers.  NOTE: NEVER ORDER ONE LINE.
> > > > ORDER TWO OR MORE LINES TO DIFFERENT SIAC DATA CENTERS.  The 
> cost 
> > > > for one port (one line) is as follows:
> > > > 
> > > > MRC (Monthly Reaccuring Cost):                         	
> > > > 	$4,400.00 
> > > > NRC (Non-Reaccuring Cost i.e. one time fee): 	$8,800 
> > > > 
> > > > Any line you drop at SIAC will cost you that amount, and 
> > that's on 
> > > > top of the line costs from the provider.  That's it.  Hope 
> this 
> > > > helps.  Like I said it's a very long and tedious process 
> > getting the 
> > > > line up and running with SIAC.
> > > > They are practically a government institution, and they 
> > don't move 
> > > > too fast for anybody.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- "R. Benjamin Kessler" <rbk at midwestnsg.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I've setup a highly-redundant connection for one of my
> > > clients
> > > > > > (equipment in two different access-centers in two
> > > > different cities).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What are you looking to do?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - Ben
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > R. Benjamin Kessler
> > > > > > Sr. Network Consultant
> > > > > > CCIE #8762, CISSP, CCSE
> > > > > > Midwest Network Services Group
> > > > > > Email: rbk at midwestnsg.com
> > > > > > http://www.midwestnsg.com
> > > > > > Phone: 260-625-3273
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-nanog at merit.edu
> > > > > > [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of Philip Lavine
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 2:38 PM
> > > > > > To: nanog at merit.edu
> > > > > > Subject: NYSE
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Does anyone have experience in setting up a direct
> > > > connection with
> > > > > > NYSE, specifically SIAC or SFTI?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >         	
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> > > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >         	
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Alen Capalik
> > > > CTO
> > > > Wiretap Networks Inc.
> > > > 
> > > > Tel:        	(310)497-3512
> > > > Email:        	alen at wiretapnetworks.com
> > > > Website: 	http://www.wiretapnetworks.com
> > > > 
> > > > /*
> > > >  *  Anything that is considered impossibility,
> > > >  *  will in fact occur with absolute certainty.
> > > >  */
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its 
> > > attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, 
> > > please notify the sender immediately by reply and 
> > immediately delete 
> > > this message and all its attachments.  Any review, use, 
> > reproduction, 
> > > disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment 
> by an 
> > > unintended recipient is strictly prohibited.  Neither this 
> > message nor 
> > > any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an 
> offer, 
> > > solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or 
> other 
> > > financial instrument.  Neither the sender, his or her 
> > employer nor any 
> > > of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the 
> > > completeness or accuracy of any of the information 
> > contained herein or 
> > > that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its 
> attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and 
> immediately delete this message and all its attachments.  Any 
> review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this 
> message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly 
> prohibited.  Neither this message nor any attachment is intended 
> as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or 
> recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial 
> instrument.  Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of 
> their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the 
> completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained 
> herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of 
> viruses.