[92958] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Collocation Access
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig Holland)
Mon Oct 23 13:36:36 2006
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:35:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <BA2F6CAB78180542A571750BFB5E6C29025D8A6E@Tin2003.hq.nac.net>
From: "Craig Holland" <cholland@rnmd.net>
To: "Alex Rubenstein" <alex@corp.nac.net>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
In fact he did have an AT&T badge which he was not allowed to hand over
either. The fellow I chatted with at AT&T said they are not allowed to
hand over their badge because it would compromise their security. I'm
assuming the badge was of the keycard variety. My thought was that they
could have an AT&T id of some sort that was specifically used for this
kind of access; one that is not a keycard and doesn't have any
proprietary information on it that would make their security people
uncomfortable if it was handed over at a collocation.
craig
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rubenstein [mailto:alex@corp.nac.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:06 AM
> To: Craig Holland; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Collocation Access
>=20
>=20
> > Is this some new trend or have I just gotten lucky in the
> > past? Wouldn't someone like AT&T be better served by giving
> > their employees some company issued ID that they can submit
> > to secure facilities? I know it wouldn't be government
>=20
> I am shocked that the ATT employee did not have an ATT ID.
>=20
> In our facilities, we require all visiting telcos to produce company
> identification, and between telcove/level 3, Verizon, MCI, and several
> others, we have never had an issue.
>=20
> I'd be a bit more suspicious that he didn't have ATT ID.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben
> Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
>=20
