NYSE
sgorman1 at gmu.edu
sgorman1 at gmu.edu
Wed Sep 22 09:03:05 UTC 2004
Backhoes are not the threat I was worried about - no need to beat a dead horse though or continue this in a public forum. The difference between viewing the world at layer 1 vs layer 3.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Benjamin Kessler" <rbk at midwestnsg.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:38 pm
Subject: RE: RE: RE: NYSE
> My understanding is that the way the SFTI network is built the
> loss of an
> entire ring between Site A and Site B wouldn't cause an outage
> because Site
> B would also have a ring between it and Site C and Site A would be
> connectedto Site n.
>
> I can't speak to how the fibers were procured and whether or not
> they're in
> their own rights-of-way (as another poster suggested; I'd guess
> that they're
> using previously dark fiber in existing bundles).
>
> Based-on the drawings I've seen (unfortunately, they don't appear
> to be on
> SFTI's web site so they must be considered proprietary) the
> multiple rings
> are separated in some places by several hundred miles to prevent
> the single
> back hoe incident.
>
> Aside from the $$ and the joy of dealing with SIAC (they tend to
> be a bit
> inflexible at times), the infrastructure has been quite stable in
> the 18
> months that my client has been using it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On
> Behalf Of
> sgorman1 at gmu.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:31 AM
> To: Temkin, David
> Cc: Alen Capalik; Philip Lavine; nanog
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: NYSE
>
>
>
> 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
> messangerjsut 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
> sameconduit. 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
> costsavings 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.
>
>
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list