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
