nanog mailing list archives
Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies
From: Danny McPherson <danny () tcb net>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 13:51:36 -0600
On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
I'm not familiar with cable break splicing procedures, but is it even possible to pay extra to have your splice done first? I would think that the logistics of splicing are such that the guy down in the hole doesn't know whose traffic is on each strand in the bundleExactly - which is a case for just having everybody's traffic mingled on a very busy 12-pair rather than several 96-pair with lots of dedicated links, *everybody* ends up back in service a lot faster... And remember - this industry has more trouble with backhoes and would-be copper thieves than terrorists. Anybody who is defending against terrorists by increasing their vulnerability to backhoes is, well...
Having done a good bit of manual copper and [old school fusion] fiber splicing for a few years as an outside plant monkey in the Army Signal Corp and a short stint thereafter as a contractor, I assure you that prioritization can make a significant different with large cable damage, in particular when single wire/pair splicing is done. Copper multi-pair splicing still allows specific bundles to be prioritized as well, sorta the same as fiber. Given that cuts and other damage usually requires splicing on two ends, some bit of coordination is required but mostly trivial, in particular with large copper cable (e.g., 2400 pair). Of course, in fairness to Valdis's comment, setup time on both ends is often the dominating factor, although bundle 1 to bundle 96 is an 2400 pair copper cable could be several hours or more. Of course, physical plant prioritization is only the dominating factor when last mile damage occurs. It's more useful and commonly employed when intermediate facility failures happen - prioritized regrooming of critical services is sometimes even automated, and often results in, err.. less critical services being booted until full restoration has occurred. -danny
Current thread:
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies, (continued)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies bmanning (Jul 08)
- RE: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies George Bonser (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Owen DeLong (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Curtis Maurand (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Jared Mauch (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Marshall Eubanks (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Larry Sheldon (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies JC Dill (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Danny McPherson (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Leo Bicknell (Jul 08)
- Re: U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies Jared Mauch (Jul 08)