Colocation providers and ACL requests

Thu Oct 27 15:00:23 UTC 2011

2011/10/26 Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keegan Holley" <keegan.holley at sungard.com>
>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Keegan Holley" <keegan.holley at sungard.com>
> > >
> > > > I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo
> > > > providers
> > > > don't provide active network for colo (as in power and rack only)
> > > customers.
> > >
> > > Most?
> >
> > I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule. It's better than "YMMV".
>
> Perhaps I look at a different category of colo provider, then, but I'm
> accustomed to seeing it be well up into double-digit percentage of the ones
> I've ever looked at.
>
> "Hosting", to me, means "provider's hardware", not just "local blended
> bandwidth".
>
>
> I think you may have misunderstood me. I mean local blended bandwidth to be
a colo provider offering extra services.  Hosting is provider hardware and
there should be a certain level of quality to the services and operation.  A
colo provider providing the same service as either courtesy access or a low
cost alternative to access from an ISP wouldn't be held to the same standard
for obvious reasons.  There's also "virtual hosting" which can be nothing
other than "local blended bandwidth".  But none of those webfarm types would
be on a list like this.... right?? ;)