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: Deepak Jain
  • Date: Wed Aug 21 17:00:30 2002


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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>





Discussion Communities


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


Merit Network, Inc.