[115620] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fire, Power loss at Fisher Plaza in Seattle
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mattinen)
Fri Jul 3 13:41:08 2009
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:40:55 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <70D072392E56884193E3D2DE09C097A91F4234@pascal.zaphodb.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> This begs the question of what basic parameters should be for a "carrier
> hotel" or co-lo.
>
> Given that we're getting designated "Critical Infrastructure", we'd
> getter start coming up with some, or we'll have them defined for us.
>
> The old NEBS standards were too much of a straightjacket, but the
> current situation, where any buffoon who wants to can claim to be
> something they aren't (redundant and reliable) undermines the business
> of those who actually spend the money, and make the effort, to provide a
> true "carrier grade" co-lo.
Absolutely. Then your pricing is so far out of whack with the apparent
competition that it's hard to get customers when it appears one can get
the same/better for far less. Me, personally, I just don't say things
like "100% uptime" or claim to be a carrier-grade facility. But I think
that scares people off when my competitors (and I've seen the insides of
some of the horrid trash heaps they call a NOC) claim they do.
>
> This is life in the current Internet: Overpromise, and Underdeliver.
>
"Our flywheel systems are so failure-proof and thinking outside the box
that we don't need a silly battery UPS that can cold-start!"
I know outages and related discussion end up attracting the off-topic
hammer here on NANOG, but I do find them interesting and worthwhile.
~Seth
