Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: RE: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers

  • From: sgorman1
  • Date: Tue Aug 09 14:59:30 2005


The latest is in the warehouse this september.  Thanks for the interest.

best,

sean

----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Crooks <sam.a.crooks@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2005 10:06 am
Subject: RE: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers

> When is that book of yours coming out?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On 
> Behalf Of
> sgorman1@gmu.edu
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:34 PM
> To: Gordon Cook
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
> 
> 
> 
> The unfortunate part of all this is there is a demand for diversity,
> especially from the financial and government sectors.  One of the big
> problems is that clients seldom know which providers or 
> combinaiton of
> providers give them the most diversity.  There are some intersting 
> ways to
> claculate the optimal set of providers by price and diversity, but 
> gettingthe data is quite difficult.  Sometime large clients like 
> the US government
> can leverage providers into divulging routing and right of ways, 
> but is
> definately the exception.  Even from our rough analyses there are 
> severalareas of heavily shared colocation.  Sounds like the 
> problem is getting
> worse and not better.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
> Date: Monday, August 8, 2005 4:17 pm
> Subject: Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
> 
> > 
> > So although we have the technology to build networks controlled 
> at 
> > 
> > the edge and networks that are less subject to failure,
> > the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist 
> > that  
> > we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies.
> > Why?  Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities 
> of 
> > 
> > economy of scale.  We concentrate the fiber and the
> >  switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of 
> 
> > failure.  We rob ourselves of redundancy.  As with the cisco
> > router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever 
> 
> > failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber.
> > Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers.   How sad.
> > 
> > How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at  
> > infrastructure?  This is terribly short sighted.
> > 
> > How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to 
> understand 
> > 
> > they better build their own infrastructure.
> > because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the  
> > equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good
> > execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your  
> > shareholder...never mind the public at large?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > =============================================================
> > The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, 
> NJ  
> > 08618 USA
> > 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook@cookreport.com  
> > Subscription
> > info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report:  
> Where 
> > is  
> > New Wealth
> >  Created? Center or Edge?  at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml
> > =============================================================
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been 
> especially> > interesting for me, with my focus being on the 
> future 
> > implications of
> > > the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that
> > > I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI 
> > will be
> > > to drastically reduce the number of options that network 
> > planners in
> > > both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for
> > > redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro 
> transport> > layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations 
> are completed.
> > >
> > > These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of
> > > routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in 
> 
> > > order to
> > > allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to 
> > kick in.
> > > In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that 
> 
> > > business
> > > continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to 
> > mention> service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to 
> a 
> > fare-thee- 
> > > well,
> > > where end users are concerned. The two question that I have 
> are, How
> > > long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, 
> What 
> > will> become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to 
> > either> business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered 
> > due to
> > > concentration of powers?
> > >
> > > While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point 
> where 
> > their> services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a 
> number 
> > of  
> > > places, it
> > > is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from
> > > disparate providers who are using different rights of way. 
> This is
> > > especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' 
> > However,> the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or 
> > even copper) loop
> > > providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding 
> piggy-
> > back> atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering.
> > >
> > > But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by 
> > Verizon,> SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are 
> > still possible.
> > >
> > > Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the 
> > number of
> > > physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once
> > > integration is completed users will find themselves riding 
> over  
> > > systems
> > > that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common 
> > set  
> > > of NMS
> > > constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher
> > > levels in the stack.
> > >
> > > frank@coluccio.net
> > > ------
> > >
> > >
> > >> Eight or nine people I had
> > >> talked to thought they had geographically distinct
> > >> ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable
> > >> when the second cut took it down hard.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy
> > > seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into
> > > their contracts?
> > >
> > > Or was this type of service "good enough"?
> > >
> > > --Michael Dillon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.