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:Not -the- answer but a part of perhaps. I think the paper helps in appreciationOn Wed, 27 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
of the maths and processes behind the concept
It does mention there being more than one NAP...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.
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Pager] www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development] Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons