4 ms·

I found this article difficult to read and confusing. In the title "... a nuclear strike". In the article: "... not kept in bunkers.. but on regular computers

I found this article difficult to read and confusing. In the title "... a nuclear strike". In the article: "... not kept in bunkers.. but on regular computers". Well is the idea to survive nuclear armageddon, or to survive a strike? A strike can take out a city if that happens the network continues to function - whatever nodes were just lost. Having everything inside a hardened bunker is not required. In so far as nuclear armageddon, I am not sure that having computers inside bunkers would help keep the internet up given it requires wiring or wireless infrastructure to communicate. If Having computer systems still operate, even on their own, then a bunker starts naking sense.

runlevel1 2y ago
> A strike can take out a city if that happens the network continues to function - whatever nodes were just lost. That's true up to a limit. Regional consolidation of ISPs have led to centralization. For instance, the 2020 Nashville AT&T building bombing caused a fairly widespread outage of phone and internet spread across 5 states. It took quite a lot of work to restore service despite most of the switching equipment not being damaged. Take out a few critical interconnection/peering points and you could have something of an internet Kessler Syndrome as a thundering herd of traffic was routed over overlapping, lower-preference routes. It would take a great deal of work by a relatively small group of people to stabilize. Work made more difficult from problems communicating, and many of the network engineers are not going to be local to the equipment they manage. Not to mention how something like that would surface all kinds of previously unforeseen bidirectional dependencies.