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

[Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster () gmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've really got ask if this thread has run it's course.

Given the nature of earlier discussions of off-topic issues, I think we've
pretty much jumped the shark with people's personal anecdotes of how to
disable fiber connectivity.

- - ferg




- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ravi Pina <ravi () cow org>
Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes!
To: JC Dill <jcdill.lists () gmail com>
Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog 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



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)

wj8DBQFJ3uJ/q1pz9mNUZTMRAoRhAJ9m7GTv719RlXUrR6vuGigwpuhJSwCg+sc5
KLrSxYR/cRu1IJOjjM4Go0c=
=x059
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-- 
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/