Re: Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes!

[Ravi Pina <ravi () cow org>]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:22:41PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
> Ravi Pina wrote:
> > That said one would *hope* vault access
> > is not trivial and there are mechanisms in place to alert of
> > unauthorized, unlawful entry. 
>
> I regularly drove on these roads when these lines were being put in 
> up-and-down the SF Peninsula.  There are 4 manhole covers every 1/4 mile 
> or so that provide access to this fiber.  Do the math.  Multiply by the 
> number of miles of fiber runs across the world, and the number of access 
> points per mile on each run.  Exactly how do you plan to make "vault 
> access non-trivial" and yet make the access as easy as it needs to be 
> for routine maintenance and repair? 

Having never been in a vault or know how to get in one other than
apparently lifting a manhole cover I can't possible answer that
with anything more than guessing.

> My guess is that it is probably less expensive in the long run to leave 
> them unprotected and just fix the problems when they occur than to try 
> to "secure" the vaults and deal with the costs and extended outage 
> delays when access it "secured" and it takes longer to get into a vault 
> to fix things.

I wasn't thinking Exodus/C&W/SAVVIS/Whoever level security, but
considering communications cables traverse such sites it is hardly
unreasonable to think they could implement some alarm that is
centrally monitored by a NOC.  I'm guessing *anything* is better
than what appears to be the *nothing* that is in place now.

Also not to get sensationalist, but less expensive than a life that
could be lost if an emergency call can't be put through?

-r