[103412] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: cooling door
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Sat Mar 29 20:10:42 2008
From: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>,
david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:06:55 -0500
Cc: michael.dillon@bt.com, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I referenced LAN rooms as an expedient and to highlight an irony. The point=
is,
smaller, less-concentrated, distributed enclosures suffice nicely for many
purposes, similar to how Google's distributed containers and Sun Micro's Da=
ta
Centers in a box do. And while LAN rooms that have been vacated, as a resul=
t of
using collapsed fiber, might fit these needs, since they would have been al=
ready
powered and conditioned in many cases, those could actually be reclaimed by
tenants and landlords as usable floor space in many cases.
>I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra=20
>contracts to keep all the gear running....
Your supposition is open to wide interpretation. I'll take it to mean that =
you
think "more" gear, not less, will require maintenance. Maybe in some cases,=
but
in the vast majority not.
Consider a multi-story commercial building that is entirely devoid of UTP-b=
ased
switches, but instead is supported over fiber to a colo or managed service
provider location. Why would this building require L2/3 aggregation switche=
s and
routers, simply to get in and out, if it hasn't any access switches inside?=
It
wouldn't require any routers, is my point. This reduces the number of boxes
reqired by a factor of two or more, since I no longer require routers onsit=
e, and
I no longer require their mates in the upstream or colos. I wouldn't requir=
e a
classical in-building L3 hierarchy employing high-end routers at the distri=
bution
and core levels at all, or I'd require a lot fewer of them. Extending this
rationale further, the level of logistics and LAN element administration re=
quired
to keep on-prem applications humming is also reduced, ir not eliminated, an=
d/or
could easily be sourced more efficiently elsewhere. I.e., from a CLI or Web
browser the LAN admin could be doing her thing from Mumbai (and in some cas=
es
this is already being done) or from home. So there's actually "less" gear to
manage, not more.
I realize this isn't a one-size-fits all model, and I didn't intend to make=
it
appear that it was. But for the vast majority of enterprise buildings with
tenants occupying large contiguous areas, I think it makes a great deal of =
sense,
or at least would be worth evaluating to determine if it does.=20
Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile
On Sat Mar 29 18:30 , david raistrick sent:
>On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Frank Coluccio wrote:
>
>> In fact, those same servers, and a host of other storage and network=20
>> elements, can be returned to the LAN rooms and closets of most=20
>> commercial buildings from whence they originally came prior to the
>
>How does that work? So now we buy a whole bunch of tiny gensets, and a=20
>whole bunch of baby UPSen and smaller cooling units to support little=20
>datacenters? Not to mention diverse paths to each point..
>
>Didn't we (the customers) try that already and realize that it's rather=20
>unmanagable?
>
>
>I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra=20
>contracts to keep all the gear running....
>
>
>I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra=20
>contracts to keep all the gear running....
>..david
>
>
>---
>david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
>
