It would't remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed a lot of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty bomb like this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in the location.
Regards, Neil. From: Mike Simpson <mikie.simp...@gmail.com<mailto:mikie.simp...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 20:38 To: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>" <uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>> Cc: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wil...@ixreach.com<mailto:steve.wil...@ixreach.com>> Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW A few years ago I had to do major incident planning for the emergency services so we were running through "likely" scenarios. The one that sticks in my mind as being described as "worryingly feasible" was the caesium based "dirty bomb" which would remove access to an area the size of docklands++ for longer than the diesel supplies would last. Seems reasonable to avoid a geophysical SPOF On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:00, Ben King <b...@warwicknet.com<mailto:b...@warwicknet.com>> wrote: Hi Stephen, Coming back to you on your original point, you make a valid point that if you lose London you lose most of the UK, from my perspective though UK is far from the whole game, we only supply businesses in a pretty region specific area, the vast majority customers are directly connected to our network (as opposed to via another providers active network) and all customers have a route to Manchester that avoids London, so in the event of a London fail I am sure they would be delighted to be able to continue to send traffic outside of the UK and carry on their international business relations (I concede there may be other hurdles that get in the way in that scenario). I think you actually highlight is that ideally more providers should be attempting to be present in both London and Manchester to give greater UK diversity. Regards... Ben On 30 October 2013 17:41, Stephen Wilcox <steve.wil...@ixreach.com<mailto:steve.wil...@ixreach.com>> wrote: Well, take a list of Tier1s: AT&T Qwest Savvis DT XO GTT Verizon Sprint Telia NTT Level3 Tata Zayo Cogent FT Seabone Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves: GTT Level3 Zayo Cogent Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin, Talktalk, Sky: Level3.. maybe? Cogent.. maybe? Zayo.. maybe? Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity and network (that was my prior point).... this gives you a wide choice. Steve On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley <jwbens...@gmail.com<mailto:jwbens...@gmail.com>> wrote: Continuing this thread; Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2 & Smelehouse East / North / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather than all of London? Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc. Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is more specifically what I'm after. Cheers, James. -- Ben King <b...@warwicknet.com<mailto:j...@warwicknet.com>> WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP Tel: 024 7699 7222 Mob: 07973 848007 http://www.warwicknet.com<http://www.warwicknet.com/>
