Re: [NANOG] Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks

[Vadim Antonov <avg () kotovnik com>]

This nonsense is only non-operational until you suddenly find yourself in a dire need to evade military patrols on a 
street while you're dragging a bag full of equipment to your "backup" NOC.

Been there, done that.

What are your contingency plans for the event of a government order (illegal, of course, but that'd be your least 
worry) to shut the network down? Putting your head into sand saying "it can't happen here?"  Yes, it can.

In the Soviet Union just emptying datacenters and phone exchanges from any personnel other than security guards - with 
all technical people making themselves unreachable was sufficient to keep the networks running. The goons, apparently, 
had no clue which switches to turn.

(There also was a capacity problem caused by the surge in the traffic; but this isn't likely to be a problem in the 
modern networks, but arranging local caches for highly demanded videos and "alternative" news sites - all mainstream 
outlets will be playing the equivalent of Swan Lake - may be necessary in order to keep service running).

--vadim

John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 02:53:22AM +0000, Michael Sokolov wrote:
>   
> > Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1.  Even if only 1% of us were
> > to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1!  We
> > *CAN* win -- wake up, people!
> >     
>
>       Is there really any need for this nonsense on this list?  Can
>       all the rhetoric and politics be kept off and return the list
>       to technical issues?
>
>       There are venues much better suited for those discussions.
>
>
>
>
>                                                       John
>