[51165] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Wed Aug 21 17:01:03 2002
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Vincent J. Bono" <vbono@vinny.org>,
"N. Richard Solis" <nrsolis@aol.net>,
"Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:27:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <038501c24943$9abdc640$b2d1bece@VINNYARMADA>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
We have seen disgruntled Union members hit the EPO in data centers in
Union-friendly cities.
Not pretty outcome, no matter how much redundancy you have.
Fire code is not compatible with Union rules.
DJ
(Disclaimer, I have a completely unbalanced view of Union workers, all bad.
I know
there are good Union workers, but I have never met any professionally -- I
have met
plenty AFTER retirement though).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Vincent J. Bono
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:50 PM
> To: N. Richard Solis; Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities)
>
>
>
> We have always had more of an issue with "Union Members" rather than
> "Verizon Employees" per se. If you don't use Union Labor to install in
> Boston or New York you had best have a secured cabinet or else 25 pair
> bundles seem to spontaneously develop slices.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "N. Richard Solis" <nrsolis@aol.net>
> To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>; <nanog@merit.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:17 PM
> Subject: RE: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities)
>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
