nanog mailing list archives
Re: Collocation Access
From: "John A. Kilpatrick" <john () hypergeek net>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Roland Perry wrote:
But presumably it would need to be stolen. Wouldn't the tech notice that happening... Or is there some way the colo security guy can clone it undetected?
While your point is valid, arguing something like that with an AT&T tech would be like arguing with the TSA. Logic and reasoning are of no value in the conversation. The policy is the policy and you deal with it.
-- John A. Kilpatrick john () hypergeek net Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/ john-page () hypergeek net Text pages| ICQ: 19147504 remember: no obstacles/only challenges
Current thread:
- Re: Collocation Access, (continued)
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: Collocation Access Jim Popovitch (Oct 23)
- RE: Collocation Access David Schwartz (Oct 23)
- RE: Collocation Access Daniel Senie (Oct 23)
- RE: Collocation Access Randy Epstein (Oct 24)
- RE: Collocation Access Michael . Dillon (Oct 24)
- Re: Collocation Access Roland Perry (Oct 24)