Michael Thomas wrote: > I think that Randy might be conflating single point of failure with > "resilience". Google, distributed on every level as it is, is still > just one operator and in this case the lemmings faithfully followed > each other into the sea. We've been on an anti-resilience binge for > quite some time, accelerated to warp speed by the advent of the > Internet itself. There's something to be said about not having all of > your > police scanners, etc, etc on the internet from a resilience > standpoint, but the siren call is strong for good reasons too. > > Mike
As I have mentioned to Randy separately, my interest was to understand whether he had made the "single point of failure" reference colloquially, or in a /critical infrastructure/ context. Some treat, and relate to the Internet as though it is a part of /"critical infrastructures."/ I simply wished to better understand the point of reference. A caveat... in stating this above... it is not a personal intention, to now originate a vacuous and malodorous thread on NANOG regarding the Internet's place in critical infrastructures. Surely, that cannot be resolved here, in this community. Regards, Robert. --
