Re: RE: RE: RE: NYSE

[sgorman1 () gmu edu]

Backhoes are not the threat I was worried about - no need to beat a dead horse though or continue this in a public 
forum.  The difference between viewing the world at layer 1 vs layer 3.

----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Benjamin Kessler" <rbk () midwestnsg com>
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:38 pm
Subject: RE: RE: RE: NYSE

> My understanding is that the way the SFTI network is built the 
> loss of an
> entire ring between Site A and Site B wouldn't cause an outage 
> because Site
> B would also have a ring between it and Site C and Site A would be 
> connectedto Site n.
>
> I can't speak to how the fibers were procured and whether or not 
> they're in
> their own rights-of-way (as another poster suggested; I'd guess 
> that they're
> using previously dark fiber in existing bundles).
>
> Based-on the drawings I've seen (unfortunately, they don't appear 
> to be on
> SFTI's web site so they must be considered proprietary) the 
> multiple rings
> are separated in some places by several hundred miles to prevent 
> the single
> back hoe incident.
>
> Aside from the $$ and the joy of dealing with SIAC (they tend to 
> be a bit
> inflexible at times), the infrastructure has been quite stable in 
> the 18
> months that my client has been using it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> Behalf Of
> sgorman1 () gmu edu
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:31 AM
> To: Temkin, David
> Cc: Alen Capalik; Philip Lavine; nanog
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: NYSE
>
>
>
> So, that would be a another conduit sitting in the same right of 
> way, and
> this is supposed to make it "completely independent".  Last time I 
> checked a
> backhoe treated all conduits the same.  Not trying to shoot the 
> messangerjsut trying to make a point.
>
> Points of entry is different than the number of pipes.  The 
> biggest single
> problem in the security of these networks is physical diversity, 
> at least in
> my biased point of view.  There are six different sets of right of 
> ways in
> Manhattan and forty something fiber providers, but no one seems to 
> fess up
> when they are not offering redundancy but just another pipe in the 
> sameconduit.  Do the math and you see the problem.  It is not just 
> a SFTI
> problem but a generic problem.  Just worrisome that it appears 
> that SFTI
> does not see it as a problem, or worse view at as a problem they 
> have solved
> by laying new pipe in the same conduits.
>
> The problem rears it head in several examples where effeciency and 
> costsavings trumps true diversity.  
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Temkin, David" <temkin () sig com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:11 am
> Subject: RE: RE: NYSE
>
> > It's my understanding that 
> > A) The providers of the actual ring did install "Separate" fiber for
> > SFTI but I have no idea whether or not they're in new rights of 
> > way -
> > I'm willing to bet not
> >
> > B) Reducing the points of entry into the ring reduces complexity and
> > makes it much easier to recover the ring in the event of a disaster.
> > Understanding that SIAC has thousands and thouands of customers
> > connecting at the DS-3+ level to get data that's generated from one
> > place means that you need to keep the distribution uniform.  
> > Basically,it boils down to them being able to say "Our ring is 
> up, 
> > if your
> > connectivity to our ring is down it's your problem" in order to 
> > maintainfairness between Trading firm A that has 10 people and 
> > Trading firm B
> > that has 10,000 people.  
> >
> > When they were maintaining separate interfaces for each customer 
> they> could potentially run into issues where they'd get certain 
> larger 
> > firmsback able to trade sooner than smaller ones and then you 
> > create unfair
> > market disadvantages. 
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: sgorman1 () gmu edu [mailto:sgorman1 () gmu edu] 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:40 AM
> > > To: Temkin, David
> > > Cc: Alen Capalik; Philip Lavine; nanog
> > > Subject: Re: RE: NYSE
> > >
> > >
> > > There are a few things about the SFTI set up that are a bit 
> > > baffling to me.  From their website:
> > >
> > > SFTI carries IP traffic over a topology of redundant, 
> > > self-healing fiber-optic rings, completely independent of all 
> > > other telco circuits and conduits. SFTI's design is 
> > > straightforward, consolidating traffic into fewer pipes, 
> > > which minimizes complexity and reduces the number of 
> > > potential points of failure. 
> > >
> > > What does "completely independent of all other telco circuits 
> > > and conduits" mean?  Did they get their very own "new" right 
> > > of ways dug out.  A certain government report listed their 
> > > physical fiber provider, and they certainly are not new right 
> > > of ways.  Further, I'm a bit baffled how reducing the number 
> > > of pipes reduces the number of potential points of failure.  
> > > Usually fewer pipes means less diversity.  A ring is nice 
> > > till someone hits it in two places.  I also wonder how many 
> > > of these rings are collapsed in a single conduit.  I hope 
> > > someone over there is asking tough questions and are 
> > > following up on getting a second physical fiber provider.  
> > > I'd recommend not advertising who it this time either.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Temkin, David" <temkin () sig com>
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:45 am
> > > Subject: RE: NYSE
> > >
> > > > You can no longer order "direct" lines to SIAC unless you 
> have 
> > an 
> > > > extremely compelling reason.  Nowadays you must order a 
> > > line to "SFTI"
> > > > which is their Disaster-Recovery-centric service.  You are 
> > correct 
> > > > aboutthe connection method, but he will need to be specific 
> > and 
> > > > understandthat he wants to connect to SFTI and not just "SIAC"
> > > > directly anymore.
> > > >
> > > > See: https://sfti.siac.com/sfti/index.jsp  for more details.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-nanog () merit edu 
> > > [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf 
> > > > > Of Alen Capalik
> > > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:20 PM
> > > > > To: Philip Lavine
> > > > > Cc: nanog
> > > > > Subject: Re: NYSE
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:36:16AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
> > > > > > If I where to connect to SIAC thru a SONNET ring who's
> > > > > would it be? Is
> > > > > > it private or public?
> > > > >
> > > > > They use any provider (Verizon, MCI, AT&T and ConEd 
> > > Comm.), however 
> > > > > ConED Comm. is their primary backbone provider.  So, 
> > > here's how you 
> > > > > go about it.  You order a line (DS-1, DS-3, 100Mb/s, Gig, 
> > > whatever) 
> > > > > from any of the providers you use (if I were you I would 
> > > use either 
> > > > > Verizon or ConEd Comm, I can give you the number for ConEd 
> > Comm. 
> > > > > head sales person).  You contact SIAC, and you start the 
> > > paperwork 
> > > > > to get your network connected into their backbone SONET.  
> > > Once you 
> > > > > get permit numbers, you have the provider drop a line 
> > > into one of 5 
> > > > > data centers around NY area, and SIAC gives you a port on 
> > one of 
> > > > > their Juniper Routers.  They also give you a VLAN setup 
> > > requirements 
> > > > > so you can configure your border switch/router.
> > > > > The line is owned by you.  SIAC only gives you a port on 
> > their 
> > > > > routers.  NOTE: NEVER ORDER ONE LINE.
> > > > > ORDER TWO OR MORE LINES TO DIFFERENT SIAC DATA CENTERS.  
> The 
> > cost 
> > > > > for one port (one line) is as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > MRC (Monthly Reaccuring Cost):                                
> > > > >       $4,400.00 
> > > > > NRC (Non-Reaccuring Cost i.e. one time fee):  $8,800 
> > > > >
> > > > > Any line you drop at SIAC will cost you that amount, and 
> > > that's on 
> > > > > top of the line costs from the provider.  That's it.  Hope 
> > this 
> > > > > helps.  Like I said it's a very long and tedious process 
> > > getting the 
> > > > > line up and running with SIAC.
> > > > > They are practically a government institution, and they 
> > > don't move 
> > > > > too fast for anybody.
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- "R. Benjamin Kessler" <rbk () midwestnsg com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've setup a highly-redundant connection for one of my
> > > > clients
> > > > > > > (equipment in two different access-centers in two
> > > > > different cities).
> > > > > > > What are you looking to do?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Ben
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > R. Benjamin Kessler
> > > > > > > Sr. Network Consultant
> > > > > > > CCIE #8762, CISSP, CCSE
> > > > > > > Midwest Network Services Group
> > > > > > > Email: rbk () midwestnsg com
> > > > > > > http://www.midwestnsg.com
> > > > > > > Phone: 260-625-3273
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-nanog () merit edu
> > > > > > > [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of Philip Lavine
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 2:38 PM
> > > > > > > To: nanog () merit edu
> > > > > > > Subject: NYSE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone have experience in setting up a direct
> > > > > connection with
> > > > > > > NYSE, specifically SIAC or SFTI?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >           
> > > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> > > > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >             
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alen Capalik
> > > > > CTO
> > > > > Wiretap Networks Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tel:          (310)497-3512
> > > > > Email:                alen () wiretapnetworks com
> > > > > Website:      http://www.wiretapnetworks.com
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > >  *  Anything that is considered impossibility,
> > > > >  *  will in fact occur with absolute certainty.
> > > > >  */
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or 
> its 
> > > > attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended 
> > recipient, 
> > > > please notify the sender immediately by reply and 
> > > immediately delete 
> > > > this message and all its attachments.  Any review, use, 
> > > reproduction, 
> > > > disclosure or dissemination of this message or any 
> attachment 
> > by an 
> > > > unintended recipient is strictly prohibited.  Neither this 
> > > message nor 
> > > > any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an 
> > offer, 
> > > > solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security 
> or 
> > other 
> > > > financial instrument.  Neither the sender, his or her 
> > > employer nor any 
> > > > of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to 
> the 
> > > > completeness or accuracy of any of the information 
> > > contained herein or 
> > > > that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
> >
> >
> > IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its 
> > attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended 
> > recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and 
> > immediately delete this message and all its attachments.  Any 
> > review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this 
> > message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly 
> > prohibited.  Neither this message nor any attachment is intended 
> > as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or 
> > recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial 
> > instrument.  Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of 
> > their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the 
> > completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained 
> > herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of 
> > viruses.