> On Jun 4, 2015, at 2:37 PM, David Farmer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On 6/4/15 15:48 , Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Reid Fishler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Marty-
>>> As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix.
>>
>> Suboptimal, unfortunately.
>
> Yes, this is not fully optimal yet, I want to see at least a second core site eventually. However, given;
>
> 1. This is our first announced remote site.
> 2. There are other remote sites in the pipeline, I believe.
> 3. Finally, none of the remote sites are even operational yet.
>
> Therefore, I suggest we defer the issue of another core site until the remote site picture develops a little bit. At this point picking the correct facility for an additional core site is premature, we are more likely to pick wrong than right at this point.
>
> I'm happy to consider the issue when there are operational remote sites with more than 2 or 3 participants each.
Sounds better. Remember, SIX isn’t captured by the colo, MICE is for all intents and purposes.
A second core should be a priority and help provide competitive pressure to make that less of an issue and provide real benefits for the members.
Thanks for the vision. Appreciated.
Best,
-M<
|