nanog mailing list archives
RE: Collocation Access
From: "Alex Rubenstein" <alex () corp nac net>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:06:05 -0400
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
I am shocked that the ATT employee did not have an ATT ID. 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. I'd be a bit more suspicious that he didn't have ATT ID. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex () nac net, latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Current thread:
- Collocation Access Craig Holland (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Joe Abley (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access John A. Kilpatrick (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Sean Donelan (Oct 23)
- Did Cogent & L3 de-peer again? chuck goolsbee (Oct 23)
- Re: Did Cogent & L3 de-peer again? Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Collocation Access Alex Rubenstein (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Etaoin Shrdlu (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Roland Perry (Oct 23)
- RE: Collocation Access Craig Holland (Oct 23)
- RE: Collocation Access John A. Kilpatrick (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Roland Perry (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access John A. Kilpatrick (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Roland Perry (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Warren Kumari (Oct 23)
- RE: Collocation Access Stasiniewicz, Adam (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Henry Yen (Oct 23)
- Re: Collocation Access Etaoin Shrdlu (Oct 23)