RE: Update: CSX train derailment
Have you checked available rights of way lately? They haven't changed much for quite a while. Telecom has not really any ability to build dedicated bridges for telcom fibre. It uses existing facilities wherever possible. Following the paths of least cost/resistance, this pretty much determines that rivers and bridges become choke-points. The only real alternatives are microwave towers (a cost/benefit argument I won't touch, even with your ten-foot pole). WRT the other comment about that MCI conduit on the tunnel wall, I have reports that temperatures are exceeding 1000F, near the fire. I submit that no amount of armor-clading is going to shield that cable, from those temps. The only cable that might survive is whatever may be buried under the road-bed.
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian@meganet.net] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 1:28 AM To: Sean Donelan Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Update: CSX train derailment
"Rivers and bridges"?
Either Frank is sensationalizing his comments for the benefit of the press, or he's been asleep since '93.
Seems to me the so-called "choke-points" now are more social and fiscal than physical - I doubt rivers and bridges are much of an issue.
:According to the Baltimore Sun, companies have laid 30,000 feet of :emergency fiber to patch around the damage in the Howard Tunnel. : : "There was a ripple effect around the country with corporate networks : due to this Baltimore disaster," said Frank Stanton, an executive with : Lexent Inc., a New York-based company that repaired fiber-optic cable : after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. "Everybody thinks they : have redundancy, but these type incidents show people there are huge : issues. When you cross rivers and bridges, these choke points are the : Achilles' heel." : :On the Washington DC to New York City fiber route, there seems to be :at least one train derailment leading to significant network traffic :re-routes every year.
There's a paper out from a civil engineering grad student at either Rutgers or Princeton that examines, among other things, available rights of way and the who, where and how of their use. It's an extremely interesting read. One interesting point made within is that in over 90% of urban and suburban areas in the U.S. which are traversed by rivers, bridges are spaced an average of less than 6 miles apart. Of those, over 75% fall within either state or federal responsibility, and include rights of way for cabling, water, etc. I'll dig up the title/author on Monday. -brian On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: :Have you checked available rights of way lately? They haven't changed much :for quite a while. Telecom has not really any ability to build dedicated :bridges for telcom fibre. It uses existing facilities wherever possible. :Following the paths of least cost/resistance, this pretty much determines :that rivers and bridges become choke-points. The only real alternatives are :microwave towers (a cost/benefit argument I won't touch, even with your :ten-foot pole). : :WRT the other comment about that MCI conduit on the tunnel wall, I have :reports that temperatures are exceeding 1000F, near the fire. I submit that :no amount of armor-clading is going to shield that cable, from those temps. :The only cable that might survive is whatever may be buried under the :road-bed. : :> -----Original Message----- :> From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian@meganet.net] :> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 1:28 AM :> To: Sean Donelan :> Cc: nanog@merit.edu :> Subject: Re: Update: CSX train derailment :> :> :> :> "Rivers and bridges"? :> :> Either Frank is sensationalizing his comments for the benefit of the :> press, or he's been asleep since '93. :> :> Seems to me the so-called "choke-points" now are more social :> and fiscal :> than physical - I doubt rivers and bridges are much of an issue. :> :> :> :> :> :> :According to the Baltimore Sun, companies have laid 30,000 feet of :> :emergency fiber to patch around the damage in the Howard Tunnel. :> : :> : "There was a ripple effect around the country with :> corporate networks :> : due to this Baltimore disaster," said Frank Stanton, an :> executive with :> : Lexent Inc., a New York-based company that repaired :> fiber-optic cable :> : after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. "Everybody :> thinks they :> : have redundancy, but these type incidents show people :> there are huge :> : issues. When you cross rivers and bridges, these choke :> points are the :> : Achilles' heel." :> : :> :On the Washington DC to New York City fiber route, there seems to be :> :at least one train derailment leading to significant network traffic :> :re-routes every year. :> :
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
:Have you checked available rights of way lately? They haven't changed much :for quite a while. Telecom has not really any ability to build dedicated :bridges for telcom fibre. It uses existing facilities wherever possible. :Following the paths of least cost/resistance, this pretty much determines :that rivers and bridges become choke-points. The only real alternatives are :microwave towers (a cost/benefit argument I won't touch, even with your :ten-foot pole).
I would think that if fiber can be run across oceans without using tunnels or bridges, that it could be run across some rivers much the same way, no? James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
I would think that if fiber can be run across oceans without using tunnels or bridges, that it could be run across some rivers much the same way, no?
the biggest exposure to cut for wet fiber is shallow water. anchors, idiots, ...
Yes, I can see that; but I imagine you could handle this much the way fiber is handled near the shoreline. Bury it a few feet under the mud or sand. James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
:> > I would think that if fiber can be run across oceans without using tunnels :> > or bridges, that it could be run across some rivers much the same way, no? :> :> the biggest exposure to cut for wet fiber is shallow water. anchors, :> idiots, ... : :Yes, I can see that; but I imagine you could handle this much the way :fiber is handled near the shoreline. Bury it a few feet under the mud or :sand. One complication of traversing rivers underwater is that, depending on the locale, many rivers have a dredged shipping channel which can be _much_ deeper than the rest of the riverbed, and is often relatively very narrow. I'm not sure this is an issue which couldn't be overcome based solely on financial incentive, however.
currents, frequent dredgeing and construction make riverbeds kind of unattractive. joelja On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
I would think that if fiber can be run across oceans without using tunnels or bridges, that it could be run across some rivers much the same way, no?
the biggest exposure to cut for wet fiber is shallow water. anchors, idiots, ...
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu Academic User Services consult@gladstone.uoregon.edu PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the right, 1843.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 up@3.am wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
:Have you checked available rights of way lately? They haven't changed much :for quite a while. Telecom has not really any ability to build dedicated :bridges for telcom fibre. It uses existing facilities wherever possible. :Following the paths of least cost/resistance, this pretty much determines :that rivers and bridges become choke-points. The only real alternatives are :microwave towers (a cost/benefit argument I won't touch, even with your :ten-foot pole).
I would think that if fiber can be run across oceans without using tunnels or bridges, that it could be run across some rivers much the same way, no?
Hey, genius, I got a question for you. How were planning to get to that [river|stream|lake|etc]shore? The rights of way lead to existing bridges and tunnels. Buying a contiguous right of way in America is exorbitantly expensive, if it's even possible, which I highly doubt. If you're already at a bridge, tunnel, whatever, (because hey, that's where the existing right of way you're using takes you) why wouldn't you use it? Your .sig lists you as CEO, yet you seem to lack the basic knowledge that corporate officers are beholden to their shareholders, doing what's cheap right now vs. what makes sense over time. The forces driving major telcos are many, and long range planning at the expense of today's stock price is not one of them. Others have brought up the issues with cabling across an active river trade route, so I'll not rehash them. Jamie Bowden -- "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold" Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" Iain Bowen <alaric@alaric.org.uk>
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Jamie Bowden wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 up@3.am wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
:Have you checked available rights of way lately? They haven't changed much :for quite a while. Telecom has not really any ability to build dedicated :bridges for telcom fibre. It uses existing facilities wherever possible. :Following the paths of least cost/resistance, this pretty much determines :that rivers and bridges become choke-points. The only real alternatives are :microwave towers (a cost/benefit argument I won't touch, even with your :ten-foot pole).
I would think that if fiber can be run across oceans without using tunnels or bridges, that it could be run across some rivers much the same way, no?
Hey, genius, I got a question for you. How were planning to get to that [river|stream|lake|etc]shore? The rights of way lead to existing bridges and tunnels. Buying a contiguous right of way in America is exorbitantly expensive, if it's even possible, which I highly doubt. If you're already at a bridge, tunnel, whatever, (because hey, that's where the existing right of way you're using takes you) why wouldn't you use it?
I didn't think we were discussing right-of-way issues, so much as diverse redundancy issues at "choke points" (see above). If everybody's fiber goes through the same tunnel, and the tunnel has a bad fire, that can lead to nasty outages...wait, it just *did* that, didn't it (not that this situation was even a river, but I digress)? Anyway, it would seem that unless you bury it fairly deeply under the riverbed, it ain't such a great idea. There goes my Mensa application...
Your .sig lists you as CEO, yet you seem to lack the basic knowledge that corporate officers are beholden to their shareholders, doing what's cheap right now vs. what makes sense over time. The forces driving major telcos are many, and long range planning at the expense of today's stock price is not one of them.
It also lists me as Janitor, are you going to now attack my dusting technique? I'll have you know that I can empty a trash can with the best of them! It might also clue you in as to how many "shareholders" I'm beholden to. James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
It also lists me as Janitor, are you going to now attack my dusting technique? I'll have you know that I can empty a trash can with the best of them!
It might also clue you in as to how many "shareholders" I'm beholden to.
Nice parry to an unwarranted ad hominem attack.
participants (7)
-
Brian Wallingford -
Jamie Bowden -
Joel Jaeggli -
Larry Sheldon -
Randy Bush -
Roeland Meyer -
up＠3.am