nanog mailing list archives

RE: Re: spare fibers


From: dies () pulltheplug com
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 21:24:51 -0400 (EDT)



Hahaha...SBGP...Praise you my son.  You make very, very, VERY valid
points...

You made me smile.

=]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:


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









Current thread: