Naik, if the Co learns from these experiences, then all is not lost. The fact that they would perfomr live tests on a live production network I find particularly interesting.
But in addition to merely "learning" something new in empirical terms about the realities of network architecture [which includes network administration, as defined in the overall framework of network architecture], it is going to be fairly difficult, read: expensive and time consuming, for them to perform remediation in order that these occurrences do not repeat themselves.
One of the definitions of empirical: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
The fundamental problems with their approach to network architecture, which we've spoken about at length both here and in the Last Mile Thread, are directly related to:
1.- The "Single point of failure" syndrome
2.- The much talked-about cumulative congestion problem associated with increased usage.
3.- Network Security Breaches [denial of service attacks, for one, and many other forms of attack potentials] See the list of links contributed by Dave Horne that treats this subject here in SI at:
Message 6733534
4.- I have reservations about this last one, but if what they are saying about the ip voice tests are true, i.e., performing real live tests on a live production network without the consent of their users, then I would suggest that they are guilty of poor judgement, at the very least, and worse, if they knew what the potential harm would be, then this speaks to blatant malfeasance.
And if they did not know what what the potential harm would be in performing live tests on a live network, then this asks the question as to their competence.
Like I say, this is an opportunity for them to learn by this series of mistakes, and take the appropriate measures to see to it that these things don't happen again. Will they?
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
