nanog mailing list archives

Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection


From: <sgorman1 () gmu edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:38:55 -0400


Or you cut the lines coming into the city - i.e Chicago has about 5 
diverse routes for fiber into the city.  No explosives required and you 
get the same effect.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Israel <davei () algx net>
Date: Friday, September 13, 2002 10:52 am
Subject: Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection


On 9/13/2002 at 10:30:47 -0400, alex () yuriev com said:


Yet, it is reasonable that people expect x % of their 
traffic to
use IX's.  If those IX"s are gone then they will need to 
find another
path, and may need to upgrade alternate paths.

I guess the question is.

At what point does one build redundancy into the network. 

No, it doesnt necessarily use IX's, in the event of there 
being no peered path
across an IX traffic will flow from the originator to their 
upstream> > "tier1" over a private transit link, then that "tier1" 
will peer with the
destination's upstream "tier1" over a private fat pipe then 
that will go to the
destination via their transit private link.

I'm only aware of a few providers who transit across IX's and 
I think the
consensus is that its a bad thing so it tends to be just small 
people for whom
the cost of the private link is relatively high.

I think you are missing a one critical point - IX in this case 
is not an
exchange. It is a point where lots of providers have lots of 
gear in a
highly congested area. However they connect to each other in 
that area does
not matter. 

Now presume those areas are gone (as in compeletely gone). What 
is the
possible impact? 

They're all completely gone?  Then we have a bigger issue than the
Internet not working, because lots of us are dead.  A lot of the
exchange areas are city-wide, in a literal sense.  Take DC, for
example.  Lots of folks connect in DC, not just at MAE-East, but also
via direct cross-connects between providers, following a large variety
of fiber paths owned by a variety of carriers.  A single event that
removed all the connectivity from DC would either have to devastate
the city and surrounding suburbs, or at a minimum, distrupt
electronics (EMP airburst) or hit every power plant in the area (and
yeah, that kills folks, too, especially in winter.)

Now, having destroyed civilization in DC (so to speak), we have
removed a major exchange point, but also all traffic generated in DC.
The rest of the Internet is fine.  To break the rest of the exchanges,
we'd have to do the same to New York, Dallas, Boston, Chicago,
Atlanta, San Francisco, San Jose...  And that's just in the States.

If you were to hit a telco hotel (usually a hard target, but we'll
grant you the necessary firepower), you would inconvenience the
Internet in that area until another well-connected site could be
chosen and filled with equipment.  Internet infrastructure is
logically mapped to telco infrastructure, and telco infrastructure is
ubiquitous.  You're looking for a weakness where it isn't.  If you
wanted to hurt the Internet, you wouldn't hit a city.  You'd hit the
cross country fiber paths, out in the middle of nowhere.

-Dave





Current thread: