Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows
The full paper is available at: http://whopper.sbs.ohio-state.edu/grads/tgrubesi/survive.pdf password: grubesic It was posted on the www.cybergeography.org website with the password, plus I'm sure Tony would like the feedback.
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 sgorman1@gmu.edu wrote:
The full paper is available at:
http://whopper.sbs.ohio-state.edu/grads/tgrubesi/survive.pdf
password: grubesic
It was posted on the www.cybergeography.org website with the password, plus I'm sure Tony would like the feedback.
Was this paper peer reviewed ? I'm interested in the problem, but this is not the paper. AT&T's network is the most vulnerable? While Onyx is among the least vulnerable? Onyx is bankrupt, and their network is no longer in operation. I guess you could argue Onyx not vulnerable any more. This paper starts out with some bad assumptions, such as there is one NAP in a city, one path between cities or the marketing maps in Boardwatch are meaningful. Until we figure out how to collect some meaningful starting data, we can't draw these types of conclusions.
Sean:
the marketing maps in Boardwatch are meaningful.
ROFLMAO!! - I needed a good laugh (I'm the NOC babysitter for this round of Holidays.. looking at a boring 4 days. ) On the semi-productive almost on-topic side: Are there any GOOD maps out there? I don't have a cool research project, just lots of curiosity. ----meuon--- Music playing: Stevie Wonder - Boogie On Reggae Woman.mp3
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 sgorman1@gmu.edu wrote:
The full paper is available at:
http://whopper.sbs.ohio-state.edu/grads/tgrubesi/survive.pdf
password: grubesic
It was posted on the www.cybergeography.org website with the password, plus I'm sure Tony would like the feedback.
Was this paper peer reviewed ?
I'm interested in the problem, but this is not the paper.
Not -the- answer but a part of perhaps. I think the paper helps in appreciation of the maths and processes behind the concept
AT&T's network is the most vulnerable? While Onyx is among the least vulnerable? Onyx is bankrupt, and their network is no longer in operation. I guess you could argue Onyx not vulnerable any more. This paper starts out with some bad assumptions, such as there is one NAP in a city, one path between cities or the marketing maps in Boardwatch are meaningful.
It does mention there being more than one NAP... Its also highlighting a point about increased resiliency through mesh redundancy and it does acknowledge differences of scale.
Until we figure out how to collect some meaningful starting data, we can't draw these types of conclusions.
And therein lies the problem! Plenty of room for theorising tho! Steve
Well, it seems the national news medias picked up on this story. How us "geniuses" re-engineered the internet into a few points that could be knocked out, killing the internet. The explanation used a bad analogy to explain it to the public. As already mentioned a lot of bad assumptions were made, and now we will be questioned based on those assumptions. There has to be a better way for us to play devil's advocate without media feedback. Happy Thanksgiving. Dave At 0:17 +0000 11/28/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 sgorman1@gmu.edu wrote:
The full paper is available at:
http://whopper.sbs.ohio-state.edu/grads/tgrubesi/survive.pdf
password: grubesic
It was posted on the www.cybergeography.org website with the password, plus I'm sure Tony would like the feedback.
Was this paper peer reviewed ?
I'm interested in the problem, but this is not the paper.
Not -the- answer but a part of perhaps. I think the paper helps in appreciation of the maths and processes behind the concept
AT&T's network is the most vulnerable? While Onyx is among the least vulnerable? Onyx is bankrupt, and their network is no longer in operation. I guess you could argue Onyx not vulnerable any more. This paper starts out with some bad assumptions, such as there is one NAP in a city, one path between cities or the marketing maps in Boardwatch are meaningful.
It does mention there being more than one NAP...
Its also highlighting a point about increased resiliency through mesh redundancy and it does acknowledge differences of scale.
Until we figure out how to collect some meaningful starting data, we can't draw these types of conclusions.
And therein lies the problem! Plenty of room for theorising tho!
Steve
-- David Diaz dave@smoton.net [Email] pagedave@smoton.net [Pager] www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development] Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons
Maybe, but to be fair the Internet is vulnerable in certain areas (particularly within individual networks) and is not built to its original intentions (well meshed).. and thats not "our fault", thats the fault of it going commercial and the need to keep costs down. This returns to a different point that with providers offering ever crazier deals to get business they have to cut back somewhere and that somewhere is in their infrastructure costs and reduced redundancy. Steve On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
Well, it seems the national news medias picked up on this story. How us "geniuses" re-engineered the internet into a few points that could be knocked out, killing the internet. The explanation used a bad analogy to explain it to the public.
As already mentioned a lot of bad assumptions were made, and now we will be questioned based on those assumptions.
There has to be a better way for us to play devil's advocate without media feedback.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Dave
At 0:17 +0000 11/28/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 sgorman1@gmu.edu wrote:
The full paper is available at:
http://whopper.sbs.ohio-state.edu/grads/tgrubesi/survive.pdf
password: grubesic
It was posted on the www.cybergeography.org website with the password, plus I'm sure Tony would like the feedback.
Was this paper peer reviewed ?
I'm interested in the problem, but this is not the paper.
Not -the- answer but a part of perhaps. I think the paper helps in appreciation of the maths and processes behind the concept
AT&T's network is the most vulnerable? While Onyx is among the least vulnerable? Onyx is bankrupt, and their network is no longer in operation. I guess you could argue Onyx not vulnerable any more. This paper starts out with some bad assumptions, such as there is one NAP in a city, one path between cities or the marketing maps in Boardwatch are meaningful.
It does mention there being more than one NAP...
Its also highlighting a point about increased resiliency through mesh redundancy and it does acknowledge differences of scale.
Until we figure out how to collect some meaningful starting data, we can't draw these types of conclusions.
And therein lies the problem! Plenty of room for theorising tho!
Steve
participants (5)
-
David Diaz -
Mike (meuon) Harrison -
Sean Donelan -
sgorman1＠gmu.edu -
Stephen J. Wilcox