Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities)

  • From: N. Richard Solis
  • Date: Wed Aug 21 14:21:25 2002

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.







Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.