[166853] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OT: Below grade fiber interconnect points
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Sinatra)
Fri Nov 15 15:59:16 2013
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:58:57 -0800
From: Michael Sinatra <michael@rancid.berkeley.edu>
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <19740419.1690.1384547382510.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 11/15/13 12:29, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Sinatra" <michael@rancid.berkeley.edu>
>
>> UC Berkeley installed 3 CEVs (Controlled Environment Vaults) below
>> ground on campus about 10-15 years ago. One of them houses one of the
>> two main fiber penetrations to campus, including DWDM gear,
>> patch-panels, border routers, even packetshapers (back when those were
>> relevant in a large EDU environment), servers, WiFi portals, etc. This
>> stuff has all been in place for at least 10 years and has worked really
>> well, modulo the caveats below. Two of the vaults have 6-7 19" telco
>> racks, and one (the one with the big fiber entrance) also has a 23"
>> rack in addition to the others.
>>
>> Caveats:
>
> [ 17 pages of caveats elided ]
I realize I am wordy, but four bullet points (one of which involves
apparel) != "17 pages of caveats". Nice try. The rest of the email was
inline replies to Justin's points.
> So, the elephant in the room at this stage of the thing is this:
>
> Why don't you just *put this stuff in a building*, and, y'know, never
> demolish it?
Have you ever been involved in University space wars? Especially in a
new building? The 9-layer OSI model gets pretty top-heavy when you
factor that in. If anything, the caveats helped to keep others from
wanting to use the space.
But I will say that the general difficulty of getting equipment in and
out of the CEVs generally discouraged UCB from doing more CEVs beyond
the 3 originals. That _one_ caveat weighed pretty heavily.
michael
