Subject: Re: [Ieprep] identification of problem

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:46:40 EST

In a message dated 12/9/2002 6:20:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> At the crux of the matter, the Internet is not centrally controlled, is
> extremely survivable, and was specifically engineered to avoid congestion
> collapse so *if* the problem is to avoid congestion collapse in an emergency
> (as defined by the way the PSTN collapses in an emergency) then the answer
> probably is that the Internet already does that. 

[MAP] I may have missed something. Can someone give an example of when and 
where "the PSTN collapsed" during an emergency? I don't consider local 
congestion or inability for some customers to get dial tone as "collapsed".

I also note that the report cited states two things in its summary:

"perfomance [of the Internet on Sept 11] does not necesarily indicate how it 
might respond to being directly targeted"
"their [ISPs] facilities were not concentrated at 140 West Street"

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:18:34 -0500

On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 10:46 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> [MAP] I may have missed something. Can someone give an example of when 
> and where "the PSTN collapsed" during an emergency? I don't consider 
> local congestion or inability for some customers to get dial tone as 
> "collapsed".

Local collapse would certainly qualify as "collapsed" in my own book.
Clearly your milage varies.

> "perfomance [of the Internet on Sept 11] does not necesarily indicate 
> how it might respond to being directly targeted"

A number of ISPs were at locations in lower Manhatten that suffered
fibre cuts, lack of power, lack of cooling, and other serious problems
on 9/11.  However, the Internet as a whole stayed up.  140 West Street
is not the only address that suffered serious problems on 9/11/02
-- as you ought to know if you didn't.

And you seem to think that "local congestion" doesn't qualify as 
collapsed
for the PSTN (which I disagree with), but why do you have such a 
blatent double
standard that it does qualify as collapsed in the IP network case ?

Ran

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:05:10 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > I don't consider inability to get dial tone as "collapsed".

Uh, what _would_ you consider a failure of the PSTN, then?  And if that
doesn't constitute failure of the PSTN, why would it constitute failure of
the Internet?  Sure looks like failure to me.

    > Can someone give an example of when and where "the PSTN collapsed"
    > during an emergency?

Just since I don't remember anyone having cited it as an example yet, Loma
Prieta.  My parents heard news reports that the bay bridge had collapsed
and that San Francisco had burned to the ground, and neither they
(inbound) nor I (outbound) were able to get any calls through for 36+
hours to contradict such sillyness.  The Internet, as usual, worked
fine; unfortunately they didn't have email yet at that time.

                                -Bill

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 Dec 2002 12:29:49 -0800

On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 12:05, Bill Woodcock wrote:

> MAP:

Hinsdale, Ill fire that burned the central office ... Didn't require the
emergency to collapse there.

Kobe, Japan earthquate (see previous post)

Richard Nixon's resignation speech.