[145947] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Colocation providers and ACL requests
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keegan Holley)
Thu Oct 27 11:02:05 2011
In-Reply-To: <26408157.222.1319639843740.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
From: Keegan Holley <keegan.holley@sungard.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:00:23 -0400
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
2011/10/26 Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keegan Holley" <keegan.holley@sungard.com>
>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Keegan Holley" <keegan.holley@sungard.com>
> > >
> > > > I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo
> > > > providers
> > > > don't provide active network for colo (as in power and rack only)
> > > customers.
> > >
> > > Most?
> >
> > I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule. It's better than "YMMV".
>
> Perhaps I look at a different category of colo provider, then, but I'm
> accustomed to seeing it be well up into double-digit percentage of the ones
> I've ever looked at.
>
> "Hosting", to me, means "provider's hardware", not just "local blended
> bandwidth".
>
>
> I think you may have misunderstood me. I mean local blended bandwidth to be
a colo provider offering extra services. Hosting is provider hardware and
there should be a certain level of quality to the services and operation. A
colo provider providing the same service as either courtesy access or a low
cost alternative to access from an ISP wouldn't be held to the same standard
for obvious reasons. There's also "virtual hosting" which can be nothing
other than "local blended bandwidth". But none of those webfarm types would
be on a list like this.... right?? ;)
