MAE-East still no generator


] > Certainly it would be reprehensible if the MAE-E core
] > infrastructure (that which MFS owns/runs) wasn't backed up.
] > However, I believe it is.
] >
] > I do not believe that it is the responsibility of MFS to provide
] > power to individual's equipment that is co-located at the site.
] If reliable power is not considered an essential part of facility
] infrastructure, how would you suggest that tenants get it?

  I do see your point, and it is quite valid.

  However, I do not see the power responsibility to the individual's
  equipment as having the same level of assumption as the power
  responsibility of the provided medium.

  If the colo provider were to provide us w/ regular utility power,
  that should be adequate, and I can take the task of longevity and
  emergency state preparation by myself.

  Can, not want to. You describe an ideal situation, and a good
  one. I don't find that to be the "norm" today.

] I think
] that the incident at the WilTel POP in Santa Clara, CA, is sufficient
] to prove that having individual tenants each supply their own
] (typically small) UPS is a Bad Thing - the power was out long enough
] to drain them to zero, furthermore (this part I have second hand) some
] of them didn't take well to being flatlined like that. If everyone
] were left to solve that problem on their own ... well, imagine
] everyone jockeying to park their trailer-mounted portable generator
] near the door. Yow.

  I've been involved in the trailer-mounted generator scenarios, and
  you are correct that solving this problem on a large scale is
  difficult w/out central control.

] Do you feel the same way about air conditioning? Security?

  I'd prefer to have my own cage, but I would expect some
  established level of provisioning by the provider. There's my
  point, that the level the provider is responsible for may well be
  less that the colo client desires.

] I believe that things like power, AC, and security (all reliable) are
] an essential part of a facility's infrastructure (and that's why PAIX
] has them). When engineered on a facility-wide scale you get a stable
] platform on which to build up successive layers, and you get economies
] of scale by solving the problem once for everyone.

  That's super. And I think PAIX's customers will appreciate it. I
  also think that PAIX's customers will pay that cost as it's built
  into the system, and that they will agree that it is a cost
  effective service to purchase.

  However, most of the colo's I'm aware of don't necessarily build
  (more than some modicum of) power/security into the package, and
  either leave it to the client or bill extra.

  I believe that all ISPs of merit should have the facilities
  provided above. I do believe it would benefit the "community" if
  they were provided by a central authority, ie the meet-point
  provider/vendor. I don't believe that the vendor is required to
  provide them...

  I ramble.