# FUCK!!!!!



## pixthor (Aug 10, 2009)

I don't know if this is good or bad. 

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/040209-obama-cybersecurity-bill.html


----------



## Rel (Aug 10, 2009)

I'd say this is fake, or else it would be plastered all over the news.. and if that really did come true, that would break many other laws and he would only have control of the internet in America, not worldwide.


----------



## gigglingHyena (Aug 10, 2009)

Rel has a point. For once, I'm happy I'm not living in the US. : D


----------



## Rel (Aug 10, 2009)

gigglingHyena said:


> Rel has a point. For once, I'm happy I'm not living in the US. : D


Yes, but if America did do this (which it couldn't and wouldn't), then most/all of the European countries and Asian countries would also follow this, hell, maybe even the UN if 'it' worked...

But this will never happen.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 10, 2009)

They're talking about critical infrastructure, like government stuff. Unfortunately, they don't mention exactly what constitutes critical infrastructure, so they're overblowing it to include "SHUTTING OFF THE INTERNETS". Which, yeah, is actually _possible_, just not very convenient at all.


----------



## Kaamos (Aug 10, 2009)

How does the government _shut down_ the internet? Do they plug up the tubes or something?


----------



## Rel (Aug 10, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> How does the government _shut down_ the internet? Do they plug up the tubes or something?


No, they would have to disconnected all of the 'super computers/servers' and all access to the other countries, and then down the line from there, to super routers and connectors, satellites and 3rd company providers (aka verizon wireless).

its possible, but it would cost too much money and take forever to do. (and you got to take in other laws that tie in with it, which would make it impossible for all of the shit they would have to do to get around it)


----------



## Kaamos (Aug 10, 2009)

Rel said:


> No, they would have to disconnected all of the 'super computers/servers' and all access to the other countries, and then down the line from there, to super routers and connectors, satellites and 3rd company providers (aka verizon wireless).
> 
> its possible, but it would cost too much money and take forever to do.



:/

I was joking. I guess I just suck at telling jokes.


----------



## Rel (Aug 10, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> :/
> 
> I was joking. I guess I just suck at telling jokes.


Nah, i just suck at finding sarcasm online. lol


----------



## SailorYue (Aug 10, 2009)

maybe they;ll rewire the RED BUTTON for this. (god knows if they disconected it during Bushes reign XD)... 

but really... 1 the articals from april, and 2 to do that would cost billions of money, if not twice that to turn everything back on.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 10, 2009)

SailorYue said:


> maybe they;ll rewire the RED BUTTON for this. (god knows if they disconected it during Bushes reign XD)...
> 
> but really... 1 the articals from april, and 2 to do that would cost billions of money, if not twice that to turn everything back on.


 No right beside the Big red button lies the Big Purple switch This switch ends the web as we know it, causing a information winter, boredom and despair everywhere!


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 10, 2009)

During the 2008 South Ossetia War a cyberwar broke out as well.  This involved a large series of hacker attacks, including DDoSs agianst internet assets in Georgia and South Ossetia from unknown vectors.  The war broke out onto the internet, basicly.

With the use of botnets already in existence the United States itself and key infrastructure that relies on the internet as their backbone could become a target.  There is also signifigant ecconomic impact that could be carried out.

It seems reasonable that the Government have power to temporarily cut specific connections to negate the threat, at the cost connections to parts of the internet being lost for ligitimate usage.

This is similar to how the government can ground every plane in the United States if an emergency large enough presents itself.  At the same time, they wouldn't use it willy nilly.  Just like they don't ground every plane very often.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 10, 2009)

> Just like they don't ground every plane very often.


In recent memory, precisely once, and I'm sure everyone agrees that it was pretty legitimate.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 10, 2009)

Mankind had persisted for eons before the Internet came along.  I'm sure we'll live if it gets shutdown for a few hours or days. :roll:  Go outside... read a book... fap to saved yiff on your drive instead of using your browser.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 10, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Go outside... read a book... fap to saved yiff on your drive instead of using your browser.



D= But... But it's old, and stale...


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 10, 2009)

Runefox said:


> D= But... But it's old, and stale...



Update your archives more often.


----------



## Jiyiki (Aug 10, 2009)

This is about as retarded as AT&T blocking 4chan.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 10, 2009)

Jiyiki said:


> This is about as retarded as AT&T blocking 4chan.



Not really. These are two different concepts; One is an ISP filtering "inappropriate" material Great Firewall of China-style, while the other is the government trying to cover its ass in the case of a cyberwar where, with military networks and other high-value targets accessible via one route or another, leaving the network running could risk national security. The airplanes being grounded during national emergencies analogy is perhaps the best way to describe it.

Unfortunately, the bill doesn't describe specifically which networks are under the umbrella of "critical infrastructure". Hence the "OH TEH NOES THE GUBMENT IS EBIL!" panic.


----------



## Jiyiki (Aug 10, 2009)

Well, AT&T blocking 4chan is retarded because what happened to freedom of speech?  You can say anything you want on the internet so AT&T shouldnt be allowed to block it.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 10, 2009)

Jiyiki said:


> Well, AT&T blocking 4chan is retarded because what happened to freedom of speech?


Freedom of speech doesn't exist as you know it within private property, and technically the internet is property - At least, their portion of the network is. If you're a customer of theirs, you have to abide by their rules, or they're legally very much allowed to b& you.

Now, it doesn't make it any better, but it certainly is within their rights to do so, just as it's within Rogers and Bell-Aliant's rights to throttle Bittorrent (and I'll bitch like hell about that, too), place a monthly usage allowance on their lines (which I also bitch about), and replace non-existing DNS records with a silly search page that you can't ever truly opt-out from (a cookie? That doesn't opt you out from anything - Oh, I'm bitching about that, too).



> You can say anything you want on the internet so AT&T shouldnt be allowed to block it.


Not true either. You can say anything you want to the extent of the rules of the site/services in question, and also of the rules of your ISP. For example, the FA forums has rules that you're supposed to abide by, as does your ISP have a ToS agreement that you have to agree to in order to get a connection. If you started going to Jihad forums and drew up plans to attack the White House, for example, expect the Feds to come knocking at your door shortly after your ISP cuts your line.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Aug 10, 2009)

Thank god I kept my old modem and my old c64. BBSes will not be down, so all of the Survivalist BBSes, and all the old bulliten boards I frequent will still be up... So I can help coordinate the revolt against the government....


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Aug 10, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> Thank god I kept my old modem and my old c64. BBSes will not be down, so all of the Survivalist BBSes, and all the old bulliten boards I frequent will still be up... So I can help coordinate the revolt against the government....



Oh hai Three Dog


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 10, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> How does the government _shut down_ the internet? Do they plug up the tubes or something?



No, they issue a Ministerial Order in Council compelling all ISP/backbone providers to comply within a set time frame.  I'm not sure the US has an equivalent to a Commonwealth countries OIC, but there is probably a similar mechanism.  Executive Order maybe?

I'd have to go review the Canadian War Measures Act, but most nations already have similar, archaic, sweeping legislation on the books.  Surprised that Obama needs this.



Rel said:


> No, they would have to disconnected all of the 'super computers/servers' and all access to the other countries, and then down the line from there, to super routers and connectors, satellites and 3rd company providers (aka verizon wireless).



Physical disconnection is not required.   All National Network Operations Centres (and all ISP/backhaul providers have one) would simply issue the correct commands to the various peering routers, making islands of each ISP.  Each ISP would then disable BGP routing on their VLANS and poof, the net is down.  Takes about 90 minutes coast to coast the last time I ran a simulation. 

Its a little bit more complex than that, but its not hard to do.  We have an emergency operations protocol for this and its only been done purposely once (to my knowledge).   Elections, G8 summits, the Pope's visit, 9/11, Gulf War I and II, Slammer/ILU virus all caused different types of alerts and appropriate responses to come through our NNOC. And yes, we drill for this sort of thing.



ToeClaws said:


> Update your archives more often.



I don't think he was talking about his archives..... :twisted:


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 10, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I don't think he was talking about his archives..... :twisted:



*spits coffee* lol


----------



## Runefox (Aug 10, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I don't think he was talking about his archives..... :twisted:



Not that old yet. XD


----------



## net-cat (Aug 10, 2009)

I don't mind the concept so long as, like the "ground all aircraft" thing, it's an "all or nothing" type of deal. If you do it, you'd better have a damn good reason to do it. Because if you don't, you've just committed political suicide due to the hundreds of millions of dollars you've just cost the economy. However, when you start giving the government power to take individuals or groups off the 'net "for emergency reasons," well, that's nothing more than a tool for oppression.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> I don't mind the concept so long as, like the "ground all aircraft" thing, it's an "all or nothing" type of deal. If you do it, you'd better have a damn good reason to do it. Because if you don't, you've just committed political suicide due to the hundreds of millions of dollars you've just cost the economy. However, when you start giving the government power to take individuals or groups off the 'net "for emergency reasons," well, that's nothing more than a tool for oppression.



Agreed!  I suspect that under the guise of "actually doing something" Obama is trying to adapt the existing legislation (likely cold-war era)  into something more targeted and precise.  And that's a good thing (despite the risk of abuse), because a lot of War-time remedies are pretty blunt and far reaching.


----------



## SailorYue (Aug 10, 2009)

well its not too hard for Comcast to shut down. atleast once a month they perform "maitnennce" and shut down everything, internet cable and phone. (damn, shut down the internet and we cant use our phones. our phone is by Vonage, and mom and dad got iphones, which require a wifi connection.


----------



## WaffleTheEpic (Aug 10, 2009)

I would personally hunt down Obama and beat him to death with a toothbrush.

(For all of you that think I'm joking, it's a slowww paaaaiiinful death)


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 10, 2009)

How would a government (any government) shut down a network specifically designed to survive and route around actions intended to shut it down?  Individual networks, shutting them down is theoretically possible, but shutting down the network of networks that is the Internet?  Not possible without completely obliterating the infrastructure.

If the US were to stop access to US-based DNS root zone servers by users outside the US, then root zone servers elsewhere in the world would pick up the slack.  Besides that, several root zone IP addresses use anycasting to point non-US 'Net users to non-US DNS servers already as a form of load balancing.  In Europe's case specifically, the ORSN was created by a coalition of European infrastructure companies as a reaction to the DNS system's at-the-time US-centric nature.

Also, the story linked seems rather old, is timed very much like a joke, and gets no results in Google News.


----------



## SailorYue (Aug 10, 2009)

> Critical infrastructure would be under government control during crisis
> By  							       John Fontana     												    	 		, 	 	 Network World     , *04/02/2009*


yep. april fools joke >_>


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 10, 2009)

Jiyiki said:


> Well, AT&T blocking 4chan is retarded because what happened to freedom of speech? You can say anything you want on the internet so AT&T shouldnt be allowed to block it.


 
It was actually revealed that due to 4chan exeriencing DDoS attacks, a large ammount of bad traffic was being used on the networks of several ISPs.  AT&T cut off parts of the network to protect the rest of it's network and to avoid the bandwidth usage being consumed needlessly.  Other ISPs did the same but only AT&T made it in the news.

AT&T in no way was attacking 'Freedom Of Speech' but was dealing with ligitimate network issues.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> I don't mind the concept so long as, like the "ground all aircraft" thing, it's an "all or nothing" type of deal. If you do it, you'd better have a damn good reason to do it.


 
Well I doubt that they'd necessarilly isolate the entire United States internet network from any connections from outside the nation unless absolutely necessary.  Economic impacts from doing so would be super huge.  They would likely cut off sections where attacks were comming from.  If the United States were ever forced to basicly 'segragate' itself for a time due to heavy attacks, this would mean that the scale of the attacks would be massive.

If they ever did 'segragate' the internet in the United States, the threat would have to outweigh the damage that doing so would cause.  It's even kinda hard to imagine the scale the necessary threat would have to be.

However, cyberwarfare is certianly a reality.  God forbid what'll happen the day they piss off China.


----------



## Rel (Aug 10, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Well I doubt that they'd necessarilly isolate the entire United States internet network from any connections from outside the nation unless absolutely necessary.  Economic impacts from doing so would be super huge.  They would likely cut off sections where attacks were comming from.  If the United States were ever forced to basicly 'segragate' itself for a time due to heavy attacks, this would mean that the scale of the attacks would be massive.
> 
> If they ever did 'segragate' the internet in the United States, the threat would have to outweigh the damage that doing so would cause.  It's even kinda hard to imagine the scale the necessary threat would have to be.
> 
> However, cyberwarfare is certianly a reality.  God forbid what'll happen the day they piss off China.


Not to mention all of the money that would be involved in doing many of these processes.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 11, 2009)

Rel said:


> Not to mention all of the money that would be involved in doing many of these processes.


 
Not necessarily though that'd depend on what you did.  Segragating the internet on the united states would not be difficult.  There are actually not THAT many connections where the internet actually leaves the country.  Severing all connections going outside of the country could be implimented.  Not only that but various networks could do the job themselves when ordered to do so.  Every server and router on the internet can already be controlled to enable or disable access to anything it's linked to.  It'd just be a matter of getting everyone to do it.

But agian, severing the US from the rest of the internet would be huge.  The threat would be huge.

Smaller threats that didn't warrent such a response but target specific parts of the US network would be the real tricky bit.


----------



## Rel (Aug 11, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Not necessarily though that'd depend on what you did.  Segragating the internet on the united states would not be difficult.  There are actually not THAT many connections where the internet actually leaves the country.  Severing all connections going outside of the country could be implimented.  Not only that but various networks could do the job themselves when ordered to do so.  Every server and router on the internet can already be controlled to enable or disable access to anything it's linked to.  It'd just be a matter of getting everyone to do it.
> 
> But agian, severing the US from the rest of the internet would be huge.  The threat would be huge.
> 
> Smaller threats that didn't warrent such a response but target specific parts of the US network would be the real tricky bit.


Yeah, it would cost alot of money to overpay thousands of people to manually disconnect and reset supercomputers, and then you have to account for all of the 3rd party providers, such as AT&T and Verizon... But meh. I dont feel like debating right now.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 11, 2009)

Rel said:


> Yeah, it would cost alot of money to overpay thousands of people to manually disconnect and reset supercomputers, and then you have to account for all of the 3rd party providers, such as AT&T and Verizon... But meh. I dont feel like debating right now.



AT&T are already in the Federal Government's back pocket, so that's one less worry for the G-men.  But it still seems academic at this point.


----------



## Rel (Aug 11, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> AT&T are already in the Federal Government's back pocket, so that's one less worry for the G-men.  But it still seems academic at this point.


Eh, you know what I meant. lol. But tbh, it will probably never happen


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 11, 2009)

Rel said:


> Yeah, it would cost alot of money to overpay thousands of people to manually disconnect and reset supercomputers, and then you have to account for all of the 3rd party providers, such as AT&T and Verizon...



You need to let go of the concept of manual disconnection.

1.  Stop the routing process on the inter-ISP peering points, and Canada drops off the net in about 120-300 seconds. 
2.  Stop the routing process on the intra-ILEC peering points and each Canadian ISP becomes an island.
3. Stop the routing process on the ISP-to-DSL (or cable, or wireless) access edge and.....ping. 

A nation goes dark.   Easy to script and execute too.  It would probably take longer to set up the multi-NNOC trans-Canada conference call than it would take to actually execute the console scripts.

Its way more complex than that...but its not that hard either.  Every ISP or backbone provider has a control plane or ISN that is designed to do just this.


----------



## net-cat (Aug 11, 2009)

Rel said:


> Yeah, it would cost alot of money to overpay thousands of people to manually disconnect and reset supercomputers, and then you have to account for all of the 3rd party providers, such as AT&T and Verizon... But meh. I dont feel like debating right now.





Irreverent said:


> You need to let go of the concept of manual disconnection.


Agreed.

I can easily knock any of the sites I have control over off the internet without setting foot in the datacenter or touching a cable. I can do it in such a way that I can still get in and bring it back online without setting foot in the datacenter. And this is all run with software that's freely available on the internet.

Do you really think that companies that are paying 9+ figures for their equipment don't also have this capability?


----------



## Rel (Aug 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> You need to let go of the concept of manual disconnection.
> 
> 1.  Stop the routing process on the inter-ISP peering points, and Canada drops off the net in about 120-300 seconds.
> 2.  Stop the routing process on the intra-ILEC peering points and each Canadian ISP becomes an island.
> ...


When i said manual disconnection, i didn't mean like litterally pulling out a plug lol, i meant like going through the servers and disconnecting all of the ones _*seperately 
*_
(But i see how you got that)


net-cat said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I can easily knock any of the sites I have control over off the internet without setting foot in the datacenter or touching a cable. I can do it in such a way that I can still get in and bring it back online without setting foot in the datacenter. And this is all run with software that's freely available on the internet.
> 
> Do you really think that companies that are paying 9+ figures for their equipment don't also have this capability?


Not goverment ran ones, they would have to set up a binding program with all of the _3rd party_ providers that connect to _their_ supercomputers (and sometimes they just connect to a satillite without even touching a 'super computer'. That would cost them money, 

(in shorter terms, its basically saying that they have to make/sign an agreement with all of the 3rd party providers that go worldwide (and other countries that are seperate that connect to the US. Thats what will cost them money, not disconnnecting the servers)



------------------------------------------


Overall, IF they did do this, it wouldn't be free.. nothing is free, according to the government. And Yes, it has a simple plan of action, which wouldn't take long, but it still involves disconnecting the US Main servers/supercomputers. Then you have to take in account 3rd party connections that dont involve those actions (i.e Cell phone internet providers, satillite connections, etc). In which the goverment would have to take legal action and step it to be able to take over control (which could be done but would take forever), and they you would have many other things to worry about. (like someone mentioned) if it was a false alarm, and then the whole public would be hugely pissed, etc.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 11, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Do you really think that companies that are paying 9+ figures for their equipment don't also have this capability?



Exactly.  Even the smallest ISP or bandwidth reseller is going to have a manned (or at least monitor) network operations centre.  Said NOC will have remote in-band, out of band and console access to every router, switch, firewall, load-balancer, ssl-accelerator, vpn, RAS, radius appliance et al in their network. 

Its a function of modern design to have a "front channel" (user facing) "back channel" (core facing), "control channel" (NNOC or NOC facing) access to every device, from customer demark all the way in to the core. 

ArielMT also raises the interesting point of purposely poisoning the master DNS servers.  It wouldn't be 100% effective, but it is a very worrisome attack vector for cyberspace warfare.  Because by design, they have to be accessible to the interent.



Rel said:


> When i said manual disconnection, i didn't mean like litterally pulling out a plug lol, i meant like going through the servers and disconnecting all of the ones _*seperately*_



Ah, I see the problem.  The Internet is not a collection of connected servers, its a collection of inter- and intra- connected networks.  You're talking layer 4 and up, I'm talking about layer 3 and down.

What is this fascination with "super computers?"  There's only a few thousand super computers in the world, and while some of them *might* be accessible directly from the Internet (although I suspect not) they sure as hell have nothing to do with an ISP's core network transport.  

What are they teaching in A+ Certification these days?


----------



## Rel (Aug 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Exactly.  Even the smallest ISP or bandwidth reseller is going to have a manned (or at least monitor) network operations centre.  Said NOC will have remote in-band, out of band and console access to every router, switch, firewall, load-balancer, ssl-accelerator, vpn, RAS, radius appliance et al in their network.
> 
> Its a function of modern design to have a "front channel" (user facing) "back channel" (core facing), "control channel" (NNOC or NOC facing) access to every device, from customer demark all the way in to the core.
> 
> ...


yeah, basically.


With your edit:
Eh, i dont specialize in networks, i just know alittle bit about them, i specialize in local hardware and Microsoft software. But what I _do_ know that either networks connect to higher and higher levels of networks, as in supercomputers or satillites or they are locally connected, or connected within a main WLAN branch which stays at a lower level.  (i just say super computer instead of all of the databases and networks, or a 3 line sentence that would basically describe something similar)

(but ill give you that i had a new/not so bright teacher, doesn't matter anyway, i got a perfect score, and the cert, so i really dont care. lol)


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> ArialMT also raises the interesting point of purposely poisoning the master DNS servers.  It wouldn't be 100% effective, but it is a very worrisome attack vector for cyberspace warfare.  Because by design, they have to be accessible to the interent.



My understanding is that ICANN distributed the root zone servers for the two-fold purpose of withstanding increasing desired usage as well as withstanding attacks against individual servers.  They implemented IP anycast on some of the root zone servers so they could balance the load beyond the 13-server maximum permitted by the RFCs defining DNS.



Irreverent said:


> Ah, I see the problem.  The Internet is not a collection of connected servers, its a collection of inter- and intra- connected networks.  You're talking layer 4 and up, I'm talking about layer 3 and down.



This.  Also, "Internet" is the name of a very specific network of networks.  It's just that it has a mindshare monopoly over the general public.

The closest any home user sees to a network of computers outside the home is the ISP's modems, DSLAMs, servers, and routers, through which a home computer is connected past the ISP's network of computers, through the network of networks, and to the remote end's (e.g. Web site's) network of computers.



Irreverent said:


> What are they teaching in A+ Certification these days?



I have no current idea, but I didn't spend money on a fancy piece of paper because too much of the older stuff in A+ training books I've read were at best inaccurate enough to answer test questions wrong.  That leads invariably to questioning the validity of new knowledge presented.



Irreverent said:


> ArialMT



That's the first time in a very long time I've been accused of being *that* sort of font. =p


----------



## Rel (Aug 11, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> I have no current idea, but I didn't spend money on a fancy piece of paper because too much of the older stuff in A+ training books I've read were at best inaccurate enough to answer test questions wrong.  That leads invariably to questioning the validity of new knowledge presented.


It was actually a class i took, and everything was payed for. And our books were new, and they were heavily based on XP, with Vista and 7 in there. I dont know what you've been looking at, but meh.

Anyway, im sure someone else can explain my point better than me.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> You need to let go of the concept of manual disconnection.


 
As awesome as the mental image of a team of IT techs running into a server room, with red lights flashing and klaxons, desperately hacking at a 3 inch thick bundle of fiberoptic cable with fire axes would be.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 11, 2009)

Rel said:


> It was actually a class i took, and everything was payed for. And our books were new, and they were heavily based on XP, with Vista and 7 in there. I dont know what you've been looking at, but meh.
> 
> Anyway, im sure someone else can explain my point better than me.



I couldn't afford classes at the time, having to rely on books (rather expensive ones at that) from a major bookstore chain instead.  I otherwise stand corrected.


----------



## Rel (Aug 11, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> I couldn't afford classes at the time, having to rely on books (rather expensive ones at that) from a major bookstore chain instead.  I otherwise stand corrected.


Its actually a High school class. Same with N+ (which im working on)


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 11, 2009)

Rel said:


> Its actually a High school class. Same with N+ (which im working on)



Public school, or private?  I've never heard of a public school earning a certification to teach accredited private certification courses.

If they really do exist, why couldn't any of my schools have had them?


----------



## Rel (Aug 11, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Public school, or private?  I've never heard of a public school earning a certification to teach accredited private certification courses.
> 
> If they really do exist, why couldn't any of my schools have had them?



Public, and we get college credits for it, and ive already been accepted as an advanced student at BSU for it.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 11, 2009)

Rel said:


> i just say super computer instead of all of the databases and networks, or a 3 line sentence that would basically describe something similar)



Yeah, I get that now, but this is a dangerous habit to get into, especially around network architects and network engineers.  



ArielMT said:


> That's the first time in a very long time I've been accused of being *that* sort of font. =p



  Fixed.  Lack of caffeine, I swear!



AshleyAshes said:


> As awesome as the mental image of a team of IT techs running into a server room, with red lights flashing and klaxons, desperately hacking at a 3 inch thick bundle of fiberoptic cable with fire axes would be.



It happened in Transformers I.  "Cut the hardlines, cut the hardlines!"


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 11, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> It happened in Transformers I.  "Cut the hardlines, cut the hardlines!"



Network infrastructure management is like nuclear power generation.  The reality is by and large ridiculously boring and undramatic.

Related:


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 12, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Network infrastructure management is like nuclear power generation.  The reality is by and large ridiculously boring and undramatic.



Aint that the truth.  NNOC work is 99% surfing, 1% sheer terror.

My last 1% was the 3 day blackout of August 2003, but that's the topic of another thread.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 12, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> My last 1% was the 3 day blackout of August 2003, but that's the topic of another thread.


 
Sure glad that black out only lasted 3hrs in Cornwall, where I lived at the time, due to a near by local hydro electric dam.  Though internet wasn't restored till 6am the next day.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 13, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Though internet wasn't restored till 6am the next day.



Our CO-batteries were running on fumes, DSLAM and FTTN batteries were dead or dying.  The cell towers and microcell's held for 8 hours and then started to degrade and then collapse.  We were running shifts 24/7 to get fuel to standby generators.  From Windsor to Quebec, Fire and Police packet radio were crashing (or had crashed)....911 was in constant jeopardy of collapse in Ontario.  Data centre generators day tanks were sucking fumes, our suppliers couldn't get diesel out of the ground because _their_ pumps were down (and the priority was hospitals anyway)......other data centre's were crashing because the AC wasn't on the backup loops (no pumps for the chillers).  That was the day I went to work on Thursday morning and came home Sunday night.

Internet was the last of our priorities.


----------

