nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internet FUD Abound
From: David Charlap <david.charlap () marconi com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:16:47 -0400
Sean Donelan wrote:
Andrew Bender wrote:Another lapse in editorial integrity... this time, Reuters: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU20000726S0007The Reuters article skips over some of the important qualifiers in the Nature letter. Read the entire letter on the Nature website. http://www.nature.com/ The conclusions are interesting, but I think missing a few pieces of data. Every major public NAP has had service affecting incidents, and so far we have not seen the partioning effect Albert et al write about.
Note also that the graph they examine is one of web pages linked to each other. Not the underlying network of fibers and routers. And, as you said, there have been catastrophic failures in the past (even as recent as last month), none of which fragmented the internet. Sure, some sites got isolated, but the majority of users didn't notice anything more than longer response times. I think there are much more important things to be worried about, like the security of the DNS system, than a coordinated attack on multiple major switching centers. -- David
Current thread:
- Internet FUD Abound Andrew Bender (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Randy Bush (Jul 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Sean Donelan (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Dan Hollis (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound David Charlap (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Scott Marcus (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound ww (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Vadim Antonov (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Danny McPherson (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Martin Cooper (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Sean Donelan (Jul 26)
- Re: Internet FUD Abound Jeremy Porter (Jul 26)