Investigators are treating the explosions as acts of vandalism, not terrorism, Shields said.

"Under the Criminal Code, it would be characterized as mischief, which is an intentional vandalism. We don't want to characterize this as terrorism. They were very isolated locations and there would seem there was no intent to hurt people," he said.

It's not all good, though. Here's a story from Philadelphia, where a subway car is criticized because people can see out the front. Because, um, because terrorist will be able to see out the front, and we all know how dangerous terrorists are:

Marcus Ruef, a national vice president with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, compared a train cab to an airliner cockpit and said a cab should be similarly secure. He invoked post-9/11 security concerns as a reason to provide a full cab that prevents passengers from seeing the rails and signals ahead.

"We don't think the forward view of the right-of-way should be available to whoever wants to watch ... and the conductor and the engineer should be able to talk privately," Ruef said.

Pat Nowakowski, SEPTA chief of operations, said the smaller cabs pose no security risk. "I have never heard that from a security expert," he said.

At least there was pushback against that kind of idiocy.

And from the UK:

Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has said the government is prepared to go "quite a long way" with civil liberties to "stop terrorists killing people".

He was responding to criticism of plans for a database of mobile and web records, saying it was needed because terrorists used such communications.

By not monitoring this traffic, it would be "giving a licence to terrorists to kill people", he said.

I hope there will be similar pushback against this "choice."

(Photo credit: The Tech Stop)

ScienceLogic: How long have you been involved with Interop?

Geoff Horne: Since about 1996.

ScienceLogic: How has it been changing? Does the show get more complex with new technologies or because of the constantly changing size of the show?

Geoff Horne: The technologies have changed. Every year there’s a different market environment. Since we build on customer needs, things change every year. Things like ScienceLogic for Network Monitoring, for how long have Network Management tools been completely web based? In general, it doesn’t really get any better or worse because every year we’re building it again. You don’t get the stability of a standard environment. The upside is that we’re always doing a full upgrade, a full technology refresh and not using old code.

ScienceLogic: Do those kinds of changes influence the types of vendors you look for for InteropNet?

Geoff Horne: The base categories don’t change. You always need to forward packets. You always need switches, you always need routers. We’ve tried to open it up to everyone that has products involved with networks to see if we have the time or space for it.

ScienceLogic: The kind of cooperation that you get between the vendors is what seems to be an unachievable nirvana for Enterprises. What’s the secret to getting 17 vendors to work together in such a short time? Enterprises would kill for that.

Geoff Horne: The honest answer is don’t trust the vendors. If they try and build something the way they want to, its not going to interoperate. You have to pull them out of their safety zone, make them do things that you think the product can/should do to ensure interoperability.

ScienceLogic: In a blog post prior to Interop Vegas 2008 you stated three major goals for InteropNet. They were Education, Monitoring and Statistics. How did you do against these goals?

Geoff Horne: I think we did pretty well. They’re 3 things we really didn’t have before. They’re things that just weren’t focused on the right way. For the first round of changing the focus, changing the way people look at the network (statistics rather than packets), it worked quite well, it gave people a much better idea as to what’s going on.

ScienceLogic: If we look at NY as take two for Interop 2008, are there things you are going to do differently based on lessons learned in Vegas?

Geoff Horne: We’re building more physical redundancy in the core network, geographic distribution of the infrastructure within the show. This will allow us to bring up chunks of the network independently. It isn’t something that we really thought of before. This helps us take the single point of failure (the NOC) out of the equation.

ScienceLogic: Are there any lessons learned from Interop that you think would help enterprises?

Geoff Horne: Visibility is key. Your network is significantly more functional when more people can see what’s going on. If the only guy that can see what’s going on is the guy with his fingers on the terminal, no one can make good decisions. You have to make people loosen up their control so that everyone can see and therefore make educated decisions.

ShareThis

1) We ended up monitoring 205 nodes in the official show network. They broke down as follows:

• 73 switches (Enterasys and Netgear),
• 4 routers (Enterasys),
• 28 power distribution units (APC),
• 5 IDSes (Enterasys Dragon),
• 20 environmental monitors (APC),
• 2 load balancers (Coyote Point),
• 2 VMware servers,
• 5 DNS and DHCP Servers (BlueCat Networks),
• 27 IP KVMs (Avocent),
• 27 IP Power Strips (Server Technologies),
• 1 Master Wireless Controller (Aruba Networks),
• 2 IP-PBX Boxes (Digium Asterisk),
• 4 Optical Taps (NetOptics),
• 1 Splunk server and
• 4 external WAN links (Qwest).

EM7 pulled data from all of these devices and delivered a single view of the data to the NOC.

2) Uptime for the network was 100%. That isn’t to say that there weren’t some device failures, but each of them was handled properly by the redundancy in the network and the show exhibitors and attendees saw no impact from these failures. This is a real testament to the design and build of the network. It’s hard enough to build a complicated network in two weeks, but then to keep it up and running 100% of the time in the wild west environment that is Interop, is really phenomenal.

3) The average monitored device in the show network didn’t even hit 10% CPU utilization. This is interesting because many items were virtualized using vmWare this year and yet, there was still a lot of hardware overhead available. (Maybe we should run Folding@Home on the show network?)

4) The show network was busy. By our calculation over 864 gigabytes of data was pulled in and 1.01 terabytes of data were pushed out of the WAN links in the 3 days that the show floor was open. That’s a sustained 56Mbps average, including off hours. At peak the show network hit about 102Mbps of WAN utilization.

5) In the three days the show floor was open the network and its supporting NOC gear used 600 kwh (kilowatt hours) per day. As a comparison, the town of Rockport, Missouri (1,300 residents) uses about 35,600kwh per day. On a side note, they are completely powered by wind power and in fact sell 3,000,000kwh per year back to the local power utility. I’m thinking next year Interop should bring some wind turbines as part of the InteropNet kit?

Next I’ll be doing some analysis on the trouble tickets opened. I think it’ll be interesting to see the kinds of issues that vendors experienced and how quickly the InteropNet staff handled them. Look for that in the next couple of days.

ShareThis