Thursday, October 14, 2004


*Complex networks have a tendency to fail*. And complexity is the enemy of security, or so goes the old saw. Since large corporate enterprises such as our own are of necessity complex, it is imperative that when failure occurs, it be ductile - that is to say, limited in ramifications, a target of little or no value.

Here's a brief piece about defending against cascading failure in systems. In it, Robb (whose website deserves accolades, devote some time!) cites a great definition - betweeness centrality - one which I must add to my stücke.

Let's call it BC.

Aside: I'll bet Robb is a Go player, perhaps dangerous with classical forms training. If you, gentle reader, ever want a game, please drop me a line.

Aside: Isn't German a wonderful language for engineering terminology?! Systempunkts carries delightful double meaning. I was not surprised to learn that CCC is the group most advanced in the mapping of critical points of BC on the WWW.

*those very failures, or "happy accidents" as I like to call them, often result in mutations - the end results of which tend to make networks more reliable and resilient. but I will save further exploration of that for the near future*


Post a Comment

<< Home