Re: Proper authentication model

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

That's great if you want to trust one carrier to provide all your seperacy,
but, when you want to make sure carrier A isn't running your ring in common
with carrier B, you need GIS data.

Owen


--On Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:36 AM +0000 Michael.Dillon () radianz com 
wrote:

> > > My point was that competing, differently-named and
> > > organisationally-separate suppliers of network services frequently use
> > > common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, building
> access,
> > > etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers
> > > doesn't mean there will be no common points of failure.
>
> > Fate sharing is bad. The only way to be sure you aren't fate sharing is
> to
> > request GIS data from the carriers. And even that could be wrong...
>
> Tell your carrier that you want to buy physical seperacy.
> Currently this is only offered by some metro networks
> because corporates want physical seperacy to connect their SANs
> (Storage Area Networks) to their offices. My company's
> network maintains seperacy for the financial market data
> feeds that run across it. We do that because the customers
> specifically demand that capability.
>
> Rather than trying to do the carrier's job by requesting
> GIS data, tell them you want to buy "physical seperacy"
> as a product. Get them to do the work and show you the
> data to prove that they really are delivering physical
> seperacy.
>
> --Michael Dillon



--
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.

Attachment: _bin
Description: