 |
 |
> 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<