Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection

[<sgorman1 () gmu edu>]

As a side note the thanks for responses on Equinix were off list 
responses - was not meant to be sarcasm since there were not any on 
list responses.

Back to the topic - the first question is the cost of protecting an 
asset less than the cost of loosing the asset.  If the answer is yes 
then there is economic justification for protection.  I believe the 
issue will not be one of the government deciding what assets are 
ciritcal, but more likely the insurace industry.  At the end of the 
day the insurance industry has to come to terms with how to deal with 
network downage.  The value they put on assets for insurance and 
reassurance will most likey be the trigger.  

Then you can start get an answer to your question of who is most 
critical - who has the most loose finacially from downage.  From the 
examples you listed I'd say NASDAQ.  The question becomes what 
infrastructure is that critical node or sector most dependent on.  It 
is the interdependecies that causes the rub, who is responsible, who 
is left holdig the bag, who has the ability to pay etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: batz <batsy () vapour net>
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2002 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection

> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 sgorman1 () gmu edu wrote:
>
> :I completely agree with statement.  It is not a matter of wanting 
> to 
> :know where the importants hubs are - we have a pretty good handle 
> on 
> :that, but what the impacts would be of a hub loss from an 
> operational 
> :stand point.  Maybe this is a discussion that needs to be off-
> line.  
> :My goal is to provide some context and validation for the 
> research 
> :that is being carried out.  
>
> The vulnerability is relative to the priority and value of the asset
> being protected. Without definition of those assets from the 
> government, 
> or whatever stakeholder needs to know, it is difficult to explain. 
>
>
> Operationally, you can talk about various meet-me points, hubs, 
> exchangesand routes as being critical, but the sites those links 
> service will be 
> the metric by which their importance is measured. 
>
> Until our various political masters decide what sites they think 
> are 
> truely critical, any assessment will be relative to shifting 
> prioritiesof participants in the discussion. 
>
> Who is more critical; Nasdaq, Google, WCOM or the GSA? You can see
> how this becomes relative pretty quickly. 
>
> --
> batz