Hi, batz wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:
:would be difficult to reach. I'd have to run a model to be sure, but :every one of the major seven have rerouting methodologies that would :recover from the loss. And I don't think they exclusively peer at
Even if we were to model it, the best data we could get for the "Internet" would be BGP routing tables. These are also subjectve views of the rest of the net. We could take a full table, map all the ASN adjacencies, and then pick arbtrary ASN's to "fail", then see who is still connected, but we are still dealing with connectivity relatve to us and our peers, even 5+ AS-hops away.
I want to make sure I understand this. As I understand it, this would work regarding routing only. It would be a model that would have a result of ones and zeros, so to speak, meaning either you're connected or you're not. What this doesn't take into consideration, I believe, is the effects of congestion regarding increased traffic due to news traffic and rerouting that takes place whenever there is a loss of a site.
I would imagine this is one of the tasks CAIDA.org is probably working on, as it seems to fall within their mission.
So even if we all agreed upon a common disaster to hypothesize on, there would be little common ground to be had, as our interpretations could only be political arguments over what is most important, because there is no technically objective view of the network to forge agreement on.
I totally agree. I think what I envision as not a huge impact would be devastating to others. That's mostly because I'm looking at it globally, like, if you take all routes as the denominator, and the lost routes as the numerator, four colo sites, even the big ones, wouldn't be *that* much effect. Proportionally. At first. Of course, if you're a smallish ISP operator and your one peering site happens to be at one of the four sites, you're done. Jane
Cheers,
-- batz