Colocation RFQ?

Wed Apr 5 06:57:19 UTC 2006

Hi, folks,

I run a small colocation cooperative in Northern California.  Our  
numbers are growing rapidly, and we're looking to expand from a half- 
cab to a full-cab in the next few months.  We'll probably also expand  
from our current 1Mbps at 95% to at least 2Mbps at 95%, but we're also  
considering a 10Mbps at 95% commit if the pricing is right.  (For  
example, there's at least one similar group who'll join us if we can  
sell them 1Mbps at 95% and 1U for $100/mo or less.)

We've been very happy at Sonic.net in Santa Rosa, CA for the last  
couple of years, and it's entirely possible that we'll stay.   
However, we're shopping around to make sure we make the best decision  
when our current contract comes to term in a few months.

We want to end up with a reputable, honest, proactive, spam-hostile,  
well-connected, well-run colo service provider in a well-engineered,  
well-run carrier-neutral facility in the San Francisco Bay Area.   
We're not looking for bargain-basement pricing - we'd like to retain  
a high quality of service - but neither can we afford to pay  
exorbitant rates.  It'd be ideal if our primary vendor was big enough  
to make things happen but small enough so that we'd represent a  
significant revenue stream.

I've seen recent traffic on this list about RFPs in the context of  
purchasing transit.  Would anyone mind sharing a sample colocation  
RFQ, or advice for creating such a document?  For example, what  
should I specify about network characteristics such as provider  
diversity and performance without A) missing something important and  
B) excluding potentially worthwhile vendors?  My overall goal is to  
collect as much relevant information as possible in a way that makes  
it easy to normalize for apples-to-apples comparisons.  I'd  
appreciate any help you could provide.

Thanks!

Graham Freeman
Cernio Technology Cooperative
http://cernio.com/colocation/
graham.freeman at cernio.com
(No sales phone calls, please.)

(Re-sent because I was initially subscribed to nanog with a different  
address than the one I used on nanog-post.  Apologies if this shows  
up twice!)