From owner-nanog@merit.edu Mon Aug 8 20:35:35 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nanog@veggiechinese.net Delivered-To: william@mitch.veggiechinese.net Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by mitch.veggiechinese.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2544BA3BD for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 16B2791246; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CE2D691266; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6354D91246 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 50D7458289; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog@segue.merit.edu Received: from fiji.merit.edu (fiji.merit.edu [198.108.1.12]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B80B58283 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fiji.merit.edu (Postfix) id 18930190B; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog@merit.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fiji.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E836B1909 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fiji.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (fiji.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26991-02 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sm4app00.siteprotect.com (sm4app00.siteprotect.com [64.41.126.205]) by fiji.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE932189A for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sm4app00.siteprotect.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sm4app00.siteprotect.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C5E33BF9 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:22:55 -0500 (CDT) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Frank Coluccio To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com X-Origin: 68.173.166.179 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:22:55 -0500 X-Uidl: 112355777549524760 X-Mailer: AtMail 5.1.2 Message-Id: <20050809032255.A6C5E33BF9@sm4app00.siteprotect.com> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at merit.edu Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu X-Loop: nanog Status: RO Gordon Cook asked:=0D =0D --=0D =0D >>How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand=0D they better build their own infrastructure.=0D because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the=0D equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good=0D execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your=0D shareholder...never mind the public at large?<<=0D =0D -- =0D =0D Assuming you're referring to a soup-to-nuts physical layer network,=0D building one's own infrastructure isn't a panacea, and it is not even=0D very often a doable proposition for organizations outside of the=0D government and for companies outside of the Fortunes.=0D =0D Taken to the extreme, customer owned networks, if used as the sole=0D source of transport, defies both the type of robustness that we seek -=0D unless multiple networks per customer are built - and the very form of=0D inter-working demanding of any-to-any end-to-end reach.=0D =0D So, unless it's a situation where great economies can be achieved in=0D support of applications that are relatively local to (or resident solely=0D within the borders of) an enterprise, maybe it's not the end all and be=0D all that we sometimes make it out to be. For a University and Research=0D Consortium, fine. For a forty-state branch banking network that=0D must reach 42,347 end points, with most of those end points producing=0D traffic for a single T1 or T3 line, or even a GbE line over an extended=0D distance, it would appear on the surface "not," although each point=0D solution requires its own evaluation. Volume discounts, the degree of=0D diversity required and security issues all come into play, to name just=0D three areas of concern.=0D =0D Rather, private builds are great for spot solutions, even very large=0D ones, that are relatively constant between two or more points when those=0D points are, likewise, constant and not constantly being relocated. But=0D IMO they do little in the way of extending reach beyond the borders of=0D the enterprise. For service providers, on the other hand, it's more of a=0D financial consideration, assessing tradeoffs against perceived future=0D pricing trends and traffic volumes. Again, to buy, rent or build is=0D something that can only be determined at the time of need, and based on=0D the particulars of the enterprise or service provider.=0D =0D That said, the situation I addressed initially highlights a case where the= =0D market had already begun taking care of some of the critical needs of=0D diversity and redundancy for the universe of North American (or at least=0D US) users, which are now about to be trashed in order to satisfy the=0D goals of two corporate entities.=0D =0D Does this make any sense? Of course not. But viewed against the backdrop=0D of this past week's FCC releases, the trend, despite how irrational and=0D ludicrous it may appear, is ringing clear as day. And so it goes ...=0D ---=0D =0D Frank A. Coluccio=0D DTI Consulting Inc.=0D 347-526-6788 Mobile=0D frank@fttx.org=0D =0D ----------=0D =0D On Mon Aug 8 16:17 , Gordon Cook sent:=0D =0D =0D So although we have the technology to build networks controlled at=0D the edge and networks that are less subject to failure,=0D the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist that=0D we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies.=0D Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities of=0D economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the=0D switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of=0D failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco=0D router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever=0D failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber.=0D Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad.=0D =0D How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at=0D infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted.=0D =0D How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand=0D they better build their own infrastructure.=0D because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the=0D equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good=0D execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your=0D shareholder...never mind the public at large?=0D =0D =0D =0D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ=0D 08618 USA=0D 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook@cookreport.com=0D Subscription=0D info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where is=0D New Wealth=0D Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml=0D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D =0D =0D =0D =0D On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote:=0D =0D >=0D > All,=0D >=0D > Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially=0D > interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of=0D > the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that=0D > I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be=0D > to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in=0D > both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for=0D > redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport=0D > layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed.=0D >=0D > These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of=0D > routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in=0D > order to=0D > allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to kick in..= =0D > In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that=0D > business=0D > continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention=0D > service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee-=0D > well,=0D > where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How=0D > long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will=0D > become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either=0D > business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to=0D > concentration of powers?=0D >=0D > While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their=0D > services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of=0D > places, it=0D > is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from=0D > disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is=0D > especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However,=0D > the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop=0D > providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back=0D > atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering.=0D >=0D > But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon,=0D > SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are still possible.=0D >=0D > Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of=0D > physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once=0D > integration is completed users will find themselves riding over=0D > systems=0D > that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set=0D > of NMS=0D > constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher=0D > levels in the stack.=0D >=0D > frank@coluccio.net=0D > ------=0D >=0D >=0D >> Eight or nine people I had=0D >> talked to thought they had geographically distinct=0D >> ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable=0D >> when the second cut took it down hard.=0D >>=0D >=0D > Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy=0D > seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into=0D > their contracts?=0D >=0D > Or was this type of service "good enough"?=0D >=0D > --Michael Dillon=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D =0D Frank A. Coluccio=0D DTI Consulting Inc.=0D 212-587-8150 Office=0D 347-526-6788 Mobile=0D =0D =0D