RE: Re: spare fibers

["Daniel Golding" <dgolding () sockeye com>]

Hmm. How many points of disruption, backhoes, chainsaws, hooligans, etc,
would be needed to do this in the US and Canada? 20? 30? Sean Donelan on
a specially outfitted Segway? (just picture it...)

I suspect that might be a better source of inquiry for our friends in
the federal government, then, say, SBGP. 

Might be useful for the Powers That Be to actually do a simulation of
this, and see how far they can get. 

- Daniel Golding

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> Behalf Of Frank Coluccio
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 6:43 PM
> To: blitz () macronet net
> Cc: nanog () trapdoor merit edu
> Subject: Re: Re: spare fibers 
>
>
>
> Almost without exception, "ring topology" implies a 
> single-carrier doing physical 
> layer provisioning and support. In the case where multiple 
> points are under 
> attack in a concerted effort to knock out service (including 
> the failover 
> capabilities), it's either an "inside job" or, at the least, 
> one where 
> intelligence relating to individual SONET backbones and rings 
> has been obtained 
> from various sources for the purpose of thwarting such _self-healing_ 
> capabilities that are usually afforded by SONET/SDH. 
>
> In the not too distant past (during the pre-sonet and early 
> SONET days when N+1 
> automatic protection switching was used instead of 
> counter-rotating recovery 
> schemes) we saw this occur, albeit infrequently, during 
> periods of labor unrest 
> and other tense forms of situations relating to competition 
> (where folks feared 
> for their jobs) along the NY-NJ corridor and in certain parts 
> of California, to 
> name just two that I recall off the top of my head. Until 
> recently (post 9-11), 
> however, it was hardly a matter of overwhelming concern. 
> Today it is becoming 
> more so a matter of heightened concern. Meshing through the 
> use of diverse 
> providers' facilities may prove to be the ultimate means of 
> protection, with the 
> proviso being that those providers are not all sharing the 
> same physical routes. 
> fwiw.
>
> FAC
>
> > Hi Daniel and all,
> > Yes, multiple fiber in multiple conduits, traveling 
> multiple paths is 
> > the
> > best way to insure something's going to have connectivity.
> > Ring topology is what I've seen mostly for best protection, 
> if something 
> > goes down, restoration takes milliseconds and is automatic. 
> Worst case, is 
> > some contractor digs up the place where your fiber enters 
> your building and 
> > severs everything....not much you can do about that kind of outage.
> >
> >
> > At 20:41 6/16/02 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hi blitz,
> > >
> > > I think that you talk about multiple outage in the 
> Telefonica Network 
> > > in Spain cause by sabotage. (48 fibers in 4 points  at the same
> > > time)
> > >
> > > I see ok the interest of the ministry, is necessary to assure that 
> > > outages don't affect to the national infraestruture.
> > >
> > > In our case we build our network over diverse companys 
> with diverse 
> > > path in their fiber network. I see ok, that all companys 
> that operate 
> > > basic services do it and they will have backup and emergency plans.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Daniel
> > > Intelideas
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, blitz wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Spanish ministry of science and technology has asked
> > > >     telecommunications companies to activate a backup 
> plan in the
> > > >     case of such emergencies in future.
> > > >
> > > > Spare fibers in the same duct ;-?
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't sound like it would be much protection from "backhoe 
> > > > fade"...heh