On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 03:37:00AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
as long as the west's ideological opponents want terror rather than panic, and also to inflict long term losses rather than short term losses, that's true. in this light you can hopefully understand why bollards to protect internet exchanges against truck bombs are not only penny wise pound foolish (since the manholes a half mile away won't be hardened or monitored or even
Of the two physical disaster scenarios, i.e. catastrophic destruction of a peering point or multiple long-line break, which do you think is the less costly -- in both time and treasure -- to remedy? It is acknowledged that the result of either is loss of service, but which is the more survivable event? In light of this, where would you focus your finite mitigation efforts?
locked) but also completely wrongheaded (since terrorists need publicity which means they need their victims to be fully able to communicate.)
Do you realize that you're putting trust in the sane action of parties who conclude their reasoning process with destruction and murder? -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \ / |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__