re: >One interesting thing I found during my research since September 11
is the Internet held up well because of its extensive use of alternate
Lest we forget, there were considerable problems bringing certain IXs back on
line that were in the affected zone back on line for a over a week after the day
of the attacks, due to problems assoicated with on-site power generation. But
ignoring those exceptions...
... yes, the Internet held up nicely, like you say, but for many reasons,
including its use of alternate providers.
Another reason, if we're to look at this in a comparative sense (which I've
inferred is the case), that is, how the 'Net fared versus how 140 West Street
did, was because none of the Internet's main exchanges or hubs took direct hits.
ISPs and NSPs were spared a tremendous amount of grief, imo, but only as a result
of serendipitous consequences, because the Twin Towers were NOT located just a
couple of blocks closer to 60 Hudson Street. Even as it was, there was ongoing
speculation that structural damage did exist at 60 Hudson, but fortunately those
were _only_ speculations, as it turns out (and as far as I know).
But had the towers been an 8th of a mile closer to 60 Hudson things would have
turned out far differently for the 'Net, not only domestically, but
internationally as well.
Has anyone assessed the level of risk that exists to the 'Net due to the high
levels of traffic concentration at 60 Hudson. Or, 1 Wilshire in LA, for that