- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Fiber cut in SF area
by Peter Lothberg 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

There are three solutions to the problem; A: Put a armed soldier every 150ft on the fiber path. B: Make the infrstructure so redundant that cutting things just makes you tired, but nothing hapens. C: Do nothing. As the society becomes more and more dependent on the infrastructure for electronic communication, my suggestion to policy makers has been that it should be easier to imprison all the government officials of a contry than knocking out it's infrastrcture. -P

3 4

Re: Fiber cut in SF area
by Shane Ronan 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

But you are ignoring the cost of designing, procuring, installing, monitoring, maintaining such a solution for the THOUSANDS of man holes and hand holes in even a small fiber network. The reality is, the types of outages that these things would protect against (intentional damage to the physical fiber) just don't happen often enough to warrant the cost. These types of solutions don't protect against back hoes digging up the fiber, as even if they gave a few minutes of advanced notice, the average telco can't get someone to respond to a site in an hour let alone minutes. On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Peter Beckman wrote: > On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Shane Ronan wrote: > >> This all implies that the majority of fiber is in "tunnels" that >> can be monitored. In my experience, almost none of it is in tunnels. >> >> In NYC, it's usually buried in conduits directly under the street, >> with no access, except through the man holes which are located >> about every 500 feet. >> >> In LA, a large amount of the fiber is direct bored under the >> streets, with access from hand holes and splice boxes located in >> the grassy areas between the street and the side walks. >> >> Along train tracks, the fiber is buried in conduits which are >> direct buried in the direct along side the train tracks, with hand >> holes every 1000 feet or so. >> >> In any of these scenarios, especially in the third, where the fiber >> might run through a rural area with no road access and no cellphone >> coverage. Simply walk through the woods to the train tracks, put >> open a hand hole and snip, snip, snip, fiber cut. > > I'm sure more malicious fiber cuts would result in heightened > security. > If you can put your hand in it, you could put a sensor in it. It > wouldn't > work everywhere, but it could work even in conduit or just simply > inside > access points. > > A device the size of your fist or smaller could do the monitoring, and > would fit in most access points I would guess. > > You can't protect it all, and obviously you can't put a camera at > every > access point (well, maybe you can). You can't stop a determined > person > from doing anything (like promote networked smart sensors for fiber > runs, > or setting a small explosion inside an access point). And maybe > environmental monitoring of these areas just won't do anything to > help. > But who knows. > > Beckman > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Beckman > Internet Guy > beckman(a)angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Fiber cut in SF area
by Scott Weeks 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

--- beckman(a)angryox.com wrote: >> I still think skipping the securing of manholes and access >> points in favor of active monitoring with offsite access is a >> better solution. > > The only thing missing from your plan was a cost analysis. Cost of each, > plus operational costs, * however many of each type. How much would that > be? So, let's see. I'm pulling numbers out of my butt here, but basing it on non-quantity-discounted hardware available off the shelf. ----------------------------------------- Manpower to design, build, maintain, train folks and monitor in the NOC. Costs of EMS, its maintenance. blah, blah, blah... scott

3 3

Re: Fiber cut in SF area
by Stefan Molnar 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

"But that would not be NEBS Complient" -PHB I have thought of air horns in my colo cage when a tech of mine messes up. ------Original Message------ From: Nathan Ward To: nanog list Subject: Re: Fiber cut in SF area Sent: Apr 13, 2009 4:55 PM On 14/04/2009, at 11:35 AM, David Barak wrote: > In addition, as has been noted, this system wouldn't PREVENT a > failure, it would just give you some warning that a failure may be > coming, probably by a matter of minutes. Some statistics about the effectiveness of car alarms and unmonitored house alarms would probably be useful here. Whack a $5 12v horn on it, and my bet is that it'd become a deterrent pretty quickly. -- Nathan Ward

1 0

RIM Mail Admin Contact
by David Prude 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hello, If there is anyone from RIM who would be willing to contact me off list I would be most appreciative. Thank you, -David Prude -- David Prude System Administrator Murphy & Durieu (212)618-0320

1 0

Verizon BGP Contact
by Ozar 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Could someone from Verizon contact me off list? We are having some problems with a new turn up with 2 Gig Links, and tech support has not been much help over the last few days in trying to get this resolved. Thanks, Brian

1 0

Paetec MPLS + BGP solution opinions
by Jeffrey Negro 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hi all - I was wondering if anyone could offer any opinions or share some experiences about Paetec, and more specifically their MPLS, BGP, and Network Firewall services. I just started at a new employer and they would like get into a more robust DR strategy involving both our locations and public services. They are suggesting that we use MPLS connections to their bandwidth infrastructure, and make use of their Network Firewall services as a front end for our public services. This way we can make use of their front end BGP without having to qualify for an ARIN allocation. I come from a company where we had our own diverse providers and had an ARIN allocation, so I have not used a managed solution like Paetec is offering. Any experience or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Jeffrey

1 0

Re: SPEEDS
by Bruce Anthony Grobler 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

My sincerest apologies guys, this really wasn't intended to end up here. Bruce On Monday 13 April 2009 4:08:06 pm robbie.jacka(a)regions.com wrote: > please stop posting this to nanog. much appreciated. > > > > > Bruce Anthony > Grobler > <bruce(a)yoafrica.c To > om> nanog(a)nanog.org > cc > 04/13/2009 09:05 > AM Subject > Re: SPEEDS > > Please respond to > bruce(a)yoafrica.co > m > > > > > > > I certainly agree that its only the two you > > Output queue: 0/40 (size/max) > 30 second input rate 16000 bits/sec, 9 packets/sec > 30 second output rate 9000 bits/sec, 7 packets/sec > 51056 packets input, 28961683 bytes > > KPMG-BR#sh clock > 15:48:52.249 GMT Mon Apr 13 2009 > > A significant difference as compared to peak hours > > On Monday 13 April 2009 3:45:10 pm Matikiti, Thomas wrote: > > Wazup Bruce - I'm a bit concerned about our speeds here even today when > > they are two people in the office I still find myself struggling to > > browse the internet due to slow speeds. We should investigate our link's > > performance when there is no one in the office because for it remains > > the same ----- slow. > > > > Regards, > > Tom > > > > > > The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this > > e-mail > > > by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication > > in > > > error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send > > to > > > the original sender , then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of > > it. > > > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, > > distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on > > it, > > > is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in > > this > > > e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing > > KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other > > information > > > in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official > > business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it. > > > > KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or > > error-free, > > > as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, > > arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. > > > > This email is being sent out by KPMG International on behalf of the local > > KPMG member firm providing services to you. KPMG International is a > > Swiss > > > cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of > > independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International > > provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International > > is > > > a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. > > > > Information about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG > > member > > > firm can be obtained from your KPMG representative. > > > > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by > > AntiVirus software.

1 0

Re: SPEEDS
by Bruce Anthony Grobler 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hi Thomas, Please paste me a traceroute to google.com Regards, Bruce On Monday 13 April 2009 3:45:10 pm Matikiti, Thomas wrote: > Wazup Bruce - I'm a bit concerned about our speeds here even today when > they are two people in the office I still find myself struggling to > browse the internet due to slow speeds. We should investigate our link's > performance when there is no one in the office because for it remains > the same ----- slow. > > Regards, > Tom > > > The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail > by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in > error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to > the original sender , then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, > distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, > is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this > e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing > KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information > in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official > business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it. > > KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, > as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, > arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. > > This email is being sent out by KPMG International on behalf of the local > KPMG member firm providing services to you. KPMG International is a Swiss > cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of > independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International > provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is > a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. > Information about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member > firm can be obtained from your KPMG representative. > > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by > AntiVirus software. > >

1 1

Re: SPEEDS
by Bruce Anthony Grobler 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

I certainly agree that its only the two you Output queue: 0/40 (size/max) 30 second input rate 16000 bits/sec, 9 packets/sec 30 second output rate 9000 bits/sec, 7 packets/sec 51056 packets input, 28961683 bytes KPMG-BR#sh clock 15:48:52.249 GMT Mon Apr 13 2009 A significant difference as compared to peak hours On Monday 13 April 2009 3:45:10 pm Matikiti, Thomas wrote: > Wazup Bruce - I'm a bit concerned about our speeds here even today when > they are two people in the office I still find myself struggling to > browse the internet due to slow speeds. We should investigate our link's > performance when there is no one in the office because for it remains > the same ----- slow. > > Regards, > Tom > > > The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail > by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in > error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to > the original sender , then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, > distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, > is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this > e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing > KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information > in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official > business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it. > > KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, > as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, > arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. > > This email is being sent out by KPMG International on behalf of the local > KPMG member firm providing services to you. KPMG International is a Swiss > cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of > independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International > provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is > a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. > Information about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member > firm can be obtained from your KPMG representative. > > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by > AntiVirus software. > >

1 0