nanog mailing list archives
Re: Collocation Access
From: "Brandon Galbraith" <brandon.galbraith () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:03:05 -0600
On 12/28/06, Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com> wrote:
Don't forget the biggie. These are "shared use facilities." People who buy space in collocation facilities already have lower security requirements. The only thing keeping the "bad guys" out is whether their payment clears. Security by poverty?
Very true. If you have an application that requires a high level of security, in a perfect world you'd have the budget to put it in your own facility where you control physical access, not outsourced security from a colo vendor. -- Brandon Galbraith Email: brandon.galbraith () gmail com AIM: brandong00 Voice: 630.400.6992
Current thread:
- Re: Collocation Access, (continued)
- Re: Collocation Access Jim Popovitch (Dec 27)
- Re: Collocation Access Patrick W. Gilmore (Dec 27)
- Re: Collocation Access Leo Vegoda (Dec 27)
- Re: Collocation Access Patrick W. Gilmore (Dec 27)
- Re: Collocation Access Mark Newton (Dec 27)
- Re: Collocation Access Joe Abley (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Leo Vegoda (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access chuck goolsbee (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Daniel Golding (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Sean Donelan (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Brandon Galbraith (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Joe Provo (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Jim Popovitch (Dec 27)
- Re: Collocation Access Joe Maimon (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Aaron Glenn (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Gaurab Raj Upadhaya (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Marshall Eubanks (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access John Curran (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Joe Maimon (Dec 28)
- Re: Collocation Access Owen DeLong (Dec 27)
- Re: Collocation Access Jim Popovitch (Dec 27)
- Re: Collocation Access Adrian Chadd (Dec 27)