Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection

["Pawlukiewicz Jane" <pawlukiewicz_jane () bah com>]

Hi Alex,

alex () yuriev com wrote:
> > > Lets bring this discussion to a some common ground -
> > >
> > > What kind of implact on the global internet would we see should we observe
> > > nearly simultaneous detonation of 500 kilogramms of high explosives at N of the
> > > major known interconnect facilities?
> >
> > N? Well, if you define N as the number of interconnect facilities, such
> > as all the Equinix sites
>
> Lets say that N is 4 and they are all in the US, for the sake of the
> discussion.

Which four? Makes a big difference. And there, we just got
proprietary/classified. I've often wondered what difference there would
be in attacking cable heads instead of colo sites. Cut off the country
from everywhere. How bad would that be. 

> > (and I'm not banging on Equinix, it's just
> > where we started all this) then I think globally, it wouldn't make that
> > much difference. People in Tokyo would still be able to reach the globe
> > and both coasts of the US.
>
> This presumes that the networks peer with the same AS numbers everywhere in
> the world, which I dont think they do.

Hadn't thought of that. I'm not sure then of the impact. 
> The other thing to think about is that the physical transport will be
> affected as well. Wavelenth customers will lose their paths. Circuit
> customers that rely on some equipment located at the affected sites, losing
> their circuits.

For individual users, it might be devastating. Overall, globally, that's
a different story.

Jane