[CII] End2End (was) terms and conditions

[John Osmon]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:54:51PM -0500, tvest at eyeconomics.com wrote:
> 
[...]
> The failure of any single, enterprise-specific payment mechanism  
> (e.g., a department store credit card), or even of a single bank can  
> be a major problem for the its current customers/users, employees, and  
> investors. But thanks to the flexibility and basic inter-institutional  
> neutrality of the monetary economy, customers can move their deposits  
> elsewhere and find other ways to send and receive payments, workers  
> can find other places or means to earn money, and investors can find  
> other opportunities where their capital resources can yield more  
> stable returns.  So long as that capacity for dynamic readjustment is  
> preserved, no single element or arrangement of elements within the  
> monetary economy is sacrosanct, and no single atomic or aggregate- 
> level element within the system would necessarily qualify as a  
> "critical infrastructure." Given that flexibility, the overall pattern  
> of system elements can (and perhaps should) be decomposed thoroughly  
> from time to time.

I like the gist of the above.  I read it as:  "Critical economic
infrastructure is intact if individual institutions can communicate."

Bill Manning points out that "pairwise" BGP relationships allow for
periodic tests of connectivity.  Is it sufficient to say that
economic/banking crictial infrastructure is intact if the majority
of those institutions can continue to "talk" during a crisis?

If so, we need to increase the "splay" of networking between the
various economic/banking entities that appear to be critical.  If we
can keep enough pairwise connections up, "dynamic readjustment" is
prserved.

If the above is true, can we generalize this approach to other
critical functions?