[51126] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (N. Richard Solis)
Wed Aug 21 14:20:03 2002
From: "N. Richard Solis" <nrsolis@aol.net>
To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:17:47 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208211334190.27087-100000@clifden.donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
The RBOCs have a long history of using the "security" card to attempt to
squelch the requirement for physical collocation by the FCC and the PUCs.
In my experience, the colo providers had more to worry about from the
employees of the RBOC w.r.t. equipment sabotage than other colo customers.
I saw this in Florida during the 95-96 timeframe and I'm sure that it's been
repeated elsewhere.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Sean Donelan
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:51 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities)
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Since Sept 11, my experience probably doesn't cut the mustard, but that's
> how it has been to this point.
Consider the various public statements on colocation security.
http://www.state.ma.us/dpu/catalog/6688.htm
"Verizon MA believes that the most effective means of ensuring network
safety and reliability is to eliminate physical collocation entirely in
all its COs, converting existing physical collocation arrangements to
virtual and requiring that all future collocation arrangements be
virtual only."
Of course, this is a very different colocation model than used by
companies such as Equinix. Just because they use the same terms doesn't
make them the same thing.
