Slashdot Mirror


Internet2 Taken Out by Stray Cigarette

AlHunt writes "A fire started by a homeless man knocked out service between Boston and New York on the experimental Internet2 network Tuesday night. Authorities say the fire, which also disrupted service on the Red Line subway, started around 8:20 p.m. when a homeless man tossed a lit cigarette. The cigarette landed on a mattress, which ignited and led to a two-alarm fire."

64 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obligatory firewall joke here, please...

    1. Re: obligatory by spyder-implee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Forget hardhack, this is hobohack!

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    2. Re:obligatory by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

      It actually was a successful test of the ultimate firewall. It prohibited all malicious hacking on Internet2.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:obligatory by sporkme · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In other news, a molehill has become a mountain. Here's tom with the weather:

      I am reminded of This 2001 train accident in Baltimore, where a tunnel fire severed a major internet backbone among other things and disrupted local communications as far away as Africa. It seems that while decentralized and robust on the massive scale, the internet is vulnerable as a child to small accidents or attacks, whose ramifications can be felt worldwide. It is too big to be defended or destroyed.

    4. Re:obligatory by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The same thing happened here in Minneapolis in the mid 1990s. As I recall, some homeless people had built a fire under a bridge, and it destroyed a couple of conduits mounted beneath the bridge deck. The conduits held the main fibers of US West connecting Minneapolis to the backbone, blacking out the city. Apparently US West was unaware that their backup fiber providers leased space beneath the same physical bridge as their own fibers.

      Since then, more carriers have installed more fibers. I don't know if carriers ever sit down and compare "bottlenecks" but I doubt that a single point of failure remains here.

      As far as the Africa thing you pointed out, it's a case of a single application being down because the required servers were offline. It's certainly not a reflection of weakness with "the internet" but with that corporation's architectural design -- if they were dealing with a mission critical application, why didn't they have geographically diverse redundant data centers? The answer could have been "money" or it could have been "inexperience". Either way, the internet didn't fail the people in Africa, WorldCom failed their subscribers (there's a news flash.) It's a huge difference.

      --
      John
    5. Re:obligatory by CmdrGravy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I worked somewhere once which had one main comms link and then a backup comms link if the first one went down. They had bought each one from a different carrier to be on the safe side only they hadn't realised one carrier was simlpy leasing space on the other carriers link, the exact same link their main one ran over.

  2. If a cigerrette can by Splezunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    take out the internet... what hope do we stand against nukes?

    1. Re:If a cigerrette can by iabervon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what happens because the internet is designed to deal with nukes. If a nuke took out the Longfellow Bridge, Internet2 users in Boston wouldn't be complaining about their network connection to NYC, or doing much of anything else. The internet is only designed to route around damage at larger-than-blast-radius scales, and the affected area was actually quite small by those standards.

    2. Re:If a cigerrette can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      take out the internet... what hope do we stand against nukes? No need for anything that elaborate, terrorists will just send a DMCA notice to ATDN/AT&T/GX/LVL3/Verizon/NTT/Qwest/SAVVIS/Sprint informing them that their core routers are caching the IPv6 address 09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:D841:56C5:6356:88C0 inside the routing tables.
    3. Re:If a cigerrette can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      This is what happens because the internet is designed to deal with nukes.


      This is common misunderstanding, so you have nothing to be ashamed of. Internet and Internet2 were first built for fast porn delivery, later military got interested and started using it for reliable porn delivery under nuclear attack.

    4. Re:If a cigerrette can by lakeland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure you're right. Well, you are right about it being designed against nuclear attack, but I don't remember anything in DARPA being specific to smaller than nuclear?

      Everything is based around: "oops, that route is down, lets try another". That sure doesn't sound scale specific to me.
      I would hazard a guess that either: a) Internet2 isn't designed along the same goals or b) cost cutting has lead to a structure far more similar to a tree than a graph and nowadays a well targetted bomb could take out most of the internet.

    5. Re:If a cigerrette can by ronanbear · · Score: 2, Funny

      You fool! The entire online porn industry is just a way to fund the NSA. What better way to ensure they have enough bandwidth and ability to shift lots of data than to control a huge chuck of it. When the time comes the porn will be the first thing they switch off to keep their access. This way they have a network backup operational and ready to operate at the flick of a switch.

      [/tinfoilhat]

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
  3. Hmmm. by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if there will be a new Internet protocol for protection against malicious smoking hackers.

    1. Re:Hmmm. by deftcoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is IPv6 flame-retardant?

      --
      Peace sells, but who's buying?
  4. An MIT student's take by Jazzer_Techie · · Score: 4, Informative

    It apparently also knocked out normal service to MIT students living on the Boston side of the Charles. One of my friends called me around 9:20PM (an hour after the fire started) to see if my internet connection was down. Fortunately, I live on the Cambridge side (with the main campus) so I wasn't affected. Here's what MIT IS&T had to say.

    --
    Wed, May 2nd:
    Internet2 Service has been restored.
    We have re-routed our connectivity to the Verizon TLS service, so all ILG's should be back in service as of 01:47AM this morning.

    Tue, May 1st, 2007:
    There was a fire earlier this evening under the Longfellow Bridge, on the Boston side of the river. This fire appears to have destroyed electrical and communications conduits that run over the Longfellow, including fiber used by MIT and other Boston area institutions to connect to Internet2.

    MIT and other New England Schools are currently disconnected from Internet2. Traffic to Internet2 institutions is being routed via the Commodity Internet, but performance may be less then normal experienced.
    --
    They got things back going again in less than 6 hours, even though it started in the evening. Not too shabby.

  5. Firewall by Dude163299 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Guess they forgot to install the firewall.

  6. Homeless? by bulliver · · Score: 5, Funny

    It wasn't a homeless guy, it was a torch job paid for by Internet 1.

    --
    Support the mob or mysteriously disappear.
    1. Re:Homeless? by Hanners1979 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or, more likely, the RIAA and/or MPAA. ;)

  7. Level3? by BigDuke6_swe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Internet2, level3? What's level3?
    "Level 3 Communications cables used by the network went up in flames"
    "Level 3 engineers estimate it could take one to two days to restore the circuit"

    Taken out by a level 1 homeless person?

    --
    Zere vere zwei peanuts valking down der Straße, and von vas assaulted...peanut
    1. Re:Level3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He obviously rolled a 20 on his attack roll.

  8. In other news by Baricom · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, witnesses reported a spontaneous cheer coming from the corporate headquarters of the Recording Industry Association of America.

  9. This is why we need tougher safety standards... by Mish · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously the newly imposed mattress fire safety rules just aren't working!

  10. We Must act Now! by scenestar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly the homeless are not only unsightfull to look at, they also pose a direct threat to homeland security by sabotaging our infrastructure.

    It seems clear that we must *eradicate* the homeless.

    (don't mod this a troll straight away)

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    1. Re:We Must act Now! by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 5, Funny

      I heard they have hammers.

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    2. Re:We Must act Now! by 0rionx · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was going to mod this comment -1 Unsightfull but for some reason I couldn't find that option...

  11. Re:reliability? by dread · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Internet was designed originally as a means of communication in the event of nuclear war.

    No it WASN'T. It was certainly financed through DoD but go read a book on the subject instead of talking out of your ass. Where wizards stay up late is recommended, nay required reading.

    --
    I've had a wonderful time, but this wasn't it -- Groucho Marx
  12. Smokey says... by Genocaust · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only YOU can prevent Internet fires!

    --
    It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
  13. O How the mighty have fallen. by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article: "The homeless man, whom authorities identified as one Kevin Rose, was apparently despondent after the recent shutdown of his tech news aggregation site. Witnesses reported seeing him staring into the flames and rocking slowly while mumbling a series of letters and numbers."

    --
    Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
    1. Re:O How the mighty have fallen. by fuse2k · · Score: 4, Funny

      "He just just kept saying '09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0' over and over"

  14. so the fire starter didn't have a home? by c_jonescc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, but isn't a little absurd, and likely judgmental, to mention TWICE in the abstract that the fire was started by a homeless person?

    If the cig was tossed from a car window would we be hearing repeatedly about how a Toyota driver started this all?

    --
    Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
    1. Re:so the fire starter didn't have a home? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Funny

      We also eat lost tourists. Throw another Aussie on the barbie, Billy-Ray! The young'uns is hungry!

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:so the fire starter didn't have a home? by alzoron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Something about this story is fishy. If they knew so many details about how the fire started, down to knowing it was a homeless smoker at precisely 8:20, why didn't anybody do anything to stop the fire. You don't just throw a cigarette and "boom" interweb 2.0 goes up in flames instantly. Sounds to me they don't really have a clue how the fire started past a mattress catching fire and just wanted to pin the blame on today's favorite evil... tobacco. Watch out folks, cigarettes kill the interweb! Secondhand smoke is somehow worse than firsthand smoke, and you'll get cancer and die tommorow if you get withing 30 feet of a smoker!

    3. Re:so the fire starter didn't have a home? by kripkenstein · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry, but isn't a little absurd, and likely judgmental, to mention TWICE in the abstract that the fire was started by a homeless person?
      I agree that twice looks a little suspicious (and how do they even know how the fire started?), but my guess is that they are trying to make it perfectly clear that it wasn't one of their own that caused the failure. That is, it wasn't a fire started by someone using Internet2, so they aren't directly to blame (but might be to blame for inadequate preparations for such events, I really don't know).
    4. Re:so the fire starter didn't have a home? by dhalgren · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyone who's been beaten by an Aussie after complaining about the steak can confirm both points.

      Torben

  15. In other news... by Monsterdog · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...US Government brought down by chili farts. Pictures at eleven.

  16. smoke kills by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  17. Internet and Internet Killers have this in common: by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 4, Funny

    What are cigarettes, after all?

    They are tubes, a series of tubes...

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  18. Re:reliability? by Half+a+dent · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is still safe this was just a lucky strike.

  19. Old Slashdot poll by dj245 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am reminded of This

    I remember voting backhoe.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  20. Look Sharp by kram175 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One if by land, Two if by sea, Three if by burning mattress under a bridge! Good thing the minute men (well, 6 hour men) were on the job. But seriously, what does this say about the vulnerability of our infrastructure? I mean, a homeless guy with a cigarette?

  21. An LSU student's take by coderedave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We had the same thing happen here at LSU last Spring semester. Someone had thrown a cigarette into a drain and caught some dry leaves on fire causing some serious fiber optics damage for most of the campus. But of course not on the scale as what happened in Boston. Luckily enough it was a small fire and happened on a Friday, so they got it fixed before Monday; so only us people in the dorms felt the effects of it :(. So I wonder if there is any kind of protection that could be used to help prevent things like this in the future.

    1. Re:An LSU student's take by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No they run them through storm drains. your phone, cable, and electrical company's do it all the time. At least for the larger trunk lines of the drains.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  22. Firehose by Chiisu · · Score: 5, Funny

    No wonder Slashdot developed Firehose....

  23. Re:reliability? by ubrgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Good call on referencing the book. When I spoke to the authors a number of years ago they were appreciative that I read it and asked me to pass the word as the sales (at least at the time) were low. It's definately an interesting read about the intents, PDPs, etc. But, if I recall (and like I said, it's been years) the actual initial thought had to do with some general not wanting to remember different passwords for two divergent systems/networks and so thought that one, large network would make things easier and allow computers involved with different projects in different locations to communicate.

    From Wikipedia, "the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them."

    (I do seem to recall the bit about the lazy officer, but can't find my copy of the book.)

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  24. Re:Fuckin' hobos. by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nightmare scenario ... they merge by some obscure genetic process (involving a spider bite or something like that) to form a backhoebo.

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  25. Geek priorities... by AndersOSU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    INTERNET DOWN! THE experimental INTERNET that nobody uses WENT DOWN, in a fire that killed three people and did millions of damager to property.

    1. Re:Geek priorities... by vancbc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take it easy, nobody died, as well there is no structural damage.

    2. Re:Geek priorities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ~ <-- joke

      * <-- your head

    3. Re:Geek priorities... by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny
      ~ <-- joke
      * <-- your head


      If the Internet2 had't been down, we wouldn't have had to settle for this low-bandwidth ASCII illustration.
  26. G0d@|\/|N smokers! by ukemike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know cigarette smokers somehow think that flicking their butts isn't littering. It pisses me off to no end. HEY SMOKERS, YEH YOU! Put them out and then throw those butts in the trash, pathetic litterbugs. It's bad enough we have to smell your stink, we shouldn't have to look at your trash strewn all over the place.

    Hopefully not too many smokers have mod points today...

    --
    -- QED
    1. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Explain to me why you goddamn smokers can't just put your butts in your car's ashtray[1] or carry around a little cup of water or *something* that shows you're capable of not being utterly selfish about your butts. Then we'll get on the subject of why smokers congregate around doors that non-smokers need to use.

      [1] If you're worried about burning paper, you can get little trash bags for paper & such that hang from your control stalks -- the ones for windshield wipers and so on. You can spend a little more to get a permanent vinyl one.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're saying that since some people leave bottles of beer everywhere, you should be able to leave cigarette butts everywhere too? Nice.

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
    3. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other news, two wrongs now make a right?

      If a cop saw you toss a beer bottle out the window, not only would you be hit with a littering fine, but you'd probably be subjected to all sorts of other unpleasantries to find out if you had just consumed said beer while you were driving. Toss your butt out this window where somebody else has to clean it up (open your door and look at the curb at any intersection) and you should get off scott free?

      Sorry, but there should be a $500 fine and 8 hours of community service if you're caught throwing a cigarette butt out the window, even if there is no fire risk. It should be a moving violation if you do it on the highway where your lit butt can hit another vehicle. Either that or we should build some stockades... I'm not saying other roadside litterers shouldn't be treated similarly, but smokers shouldn't get special treatment.

    4. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Eccles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      f you had just let them smoke in their offices

      I'm old enough to have worked with smokers who could smoke in their offices. My girlfriend at the time could tell the days I'd gone into the smokers' offices, even for a brief visit, and would demand that I shower before I'd get any action.

      Sorry, but having a smoking section in a building is like having a peeing section in a pool.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    5. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Grimbleton · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate getting them flicked deliberately out windows when I'm behind someone on my motorcycle. They look, wave, and flick. Wtf?

    6. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by StarvingSE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cigarettes rarely, if ever, start fires in the wild. Lightning strikes and dry conditions are way more responsible than a cigarette being tossed out a window.

      ORLY?


      As an aside, I don't dislike smokers, I just dislike discourteous smokers. And yes, I consider anyone who smokes inside a public place discourteous. I enjoy going to places like the bar, bowling alleys, and small diners. However, I am always subjected to breathing in the filth that comes our of cigarette smoke. Now, I have extra medical expenses because of a severe allergic reaction to cigarette smoke due to my constant exposure to it (I live in MI, one of the heavier smoking states). I think I have a right to be an "anti-smoker whiner" and will continue to be one until laws are passed that ban smoking in public places.

      --
      I got nothin'
    7. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by StarvingSE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The dumb analogy strikes again! Homosexuals don't cause me health problems. They also don't pollute the air with chemicals (well, unless they're homosexual smokers).

      And your comment about going to a "non-gay" bar would seem to suggest that you're telling me to go to a non-smoking bar. If you can give me the name of even one bar in the metro detroit area that is non-smoking, I'll buy you a pack of smokes.

      --
      I got nothin'
    8. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by StarvingSE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with your comment is that "smoker" is not a minority group. How can I choose to go where people don't smoke when businesses don't ban it. I'm happy that smoking is banned at the workplace around here, but if I want to go get a beer, get some food, watch the game at a bar, or go bowling, it means subjecting myself to cigarette smoke.

      --
      I got nothin'
    9. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If you can give me the name of even one bar in the metro detroit area that is non-smoking, I'll buy you a pack of smokes."

      Karra's Bro's. Tavern
      225 Jos. Campau, Detroit, Michigan; Tel. 313.259.2767
      A non-smoking sports bar, with a rooftop patio, in the heart of downtown with sports on TV, electronic trivia and games.

      "Both Miller's Bar and Redcoat Tavern do have non-smoking sections, and you can be very express with them and tell them "*Very* non-smoking, please." which is usually understood and accomodated, but you may have to wait longer for your table."

    10. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by neglige · · Score: 2, Funny

      Both Miller's Bar and Redcoat Tavern do have non-smoking sections

      Smoke doesn't know how to stay in the smoking section...

      --
      My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
    11. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by pestario · · Score: 3, Funny

      "A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool."

      --
      :n
    12. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Smoking places second-hand smoke into the environment. I go for a drink somewhere with smokers (Only one or two), I come home smelling of cigarette smoke. I go for a drink somewhere with homosexuals (Only one or two), I do not come home gay.

      I dislike people who pollute my local environment. This includes people who thing playing dance music on their phone at full volume is the height of cool and those who otherwise do things which irritate me if I'm not really paying attention. Smoking falls into this category, and I fail to see how things like 'noise pollution' can be covered by laws yet 'smoking pollution' can't.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    13. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Stamen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people are selfish pricks. Smokers, prove this fact more than most. I could care less if they smoke, but the general attitude that when they throw trash on the ground, it's perfectly fine just gets me. Do what you want, but don't think I'm not going to do what I want to you.

      I'm generally libertarian leaning, and don't like interfering with anyone else's business, and I like to stand up for those whose business is interfered with. However, most smokers complete lack of respect for anyone makes me just ignore the injustices inflicted on them. I've only so much time on my soapbox to stand up for peoples rights, I'll use that time for some other group, thank you.

  27. Re:reliability? by alienmole · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But after having said all that: it still seems fair to ask why core infrastructure isn't better protected against ordinary accidents, much less sabotage.
    No, it isn't fair. The Internet2 is an experimental network, and I'd certainly vote against spending money on sabotage-proofing it at this point.

    It was not comforting to learn that the explosion of a single tanker could bring down one of the approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge.
    Life has infinite risks. It's impossible to guard against all of them. The cost of explosion-proofing all approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge to the necessary degree cannot be justified by the amortized cost of such an event. Not that hysterical voters might not approve such a thing anyway...