Best of the ISP-Lists

Clients Complicate Colocation

Members of the ISP-Colo list discuss what clients expect from a carrier class service. Are you responsible for any effects one client's equipment might have on another's, and what objective standards can you refer to?

[May 2, 2001]

On the ISP-Colo list in April, EJ inquired,

"What exactly constitutes carrier-class standards for colo?"

A number of respondents suggested that it's really just marketing lingo:

[SP noted] "Carrier-class gets used as a catch phrase, but rarely means much any more. Carrier-class implies the level of redundancy that you need to deliver dial tone and E911, which at one point was considered highly redundant for anything other than phone services. Today, it's a requirement for most businesses on the Internet.

For facilities, this means (for starters) redundant, diverse fiber entrances into the building, N+1 generators for backup, N+2 AC units, tight physical security, and 24x7 staff."

[SD countered] "For a copy of the E911 equipment standard see this pdf file.

E911 doesn't require N+1 generators (heck, it doesn't even require a generator, although it's recommended). One reason why many folks are moving out of carrier facilities and into colo facilities is that 'carrier-class' was less than they expected."

KF noted that it's not just about the facility itself:

"Carrier-class can also apply to the equipment deployed in a facility. The problem I have seen is when companies look at facilities only to provide 'carrier-class reliability,' they overlook the hardware that will be deployed. This about this: you have a multi-million dollar facility, then you place servers into this environment that could be called home desktops.

Many ILECs still require hardware to pass the Network Equipment Building Systems (NEBS) standards before it can be deployed in their facilities, not only to establish high reliability platforms but also to protect adjacent equipment from damage."

Others observed that it's not quite that simple:

[JM countered] "Are you suggesting that a colo provider should screen and approve his customers' servers before allowing them in the facility? Or, even worse, that I should care if the guy across the aisle is running an old 486 desktop as a web server? Take a look at the average Cobalt or similar inexpensive server: it really differs from a desktop only in its 1U rackmount form factor, yet there are data centers filled with these things."

[PC agreed] "The type of equipment is irrelevant as long as it is safe. Still, powering up and running a client's server prior to installation is an interesting idea. I can see the rationale in knowing about a short or faulty system prior to installing it in a rack with other clients."

[SD observed] "A problem is that NEBS isn't strictly a pass/fail type of test. If someone installed a stovetop next to my cabinet, I would be concerned. The gray area lies with commercial electronic data processing equipment that's acceptable for use but not the best you can buy. The problem for any colo manager is that customers want the most freedom for themselves, but also want protection from the impact of any other customer."

—End