This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/cooperation-wg@ripe.net/
[cooperation-wg] Undersea cables
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Undersea cables
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: From RIPE 75 to IGF 2017
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue Dec 5 20:40:24 CET 2017
> On 5 Dec 2017, at 18:35, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote: > > And so governments must now do something? Well, what do you think governments (and others) should do about this? [Perhaps they already have taken precautions and aren't going to make that public for obvious reasons.] And more importantly, what is or should be the role of this WG in those actions? FWIW these cables get damaged from time to time anyway. ISTR a few years ago a ship dropped an anchor in a rather unfortunate location in the Mediterranean and that caused interweb traffic between Europe and Asia to go via America for a few days until the cable(s) got fixed. Most countries should have sufficient redundancy in their physical cables and landing stations. However that may not be the case for small isolated communities that are far away from where cables tend to be installed. There's always satellite as a backup I suppose.
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Undersea cables
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: From RIPE 75 to IGF 2017
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]