|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 41 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 9 of 41:
| 
Jan 18 06:56 UTC 2003 |
Si. Da. Hai. Ya. Oui. Okey-dokey.
|
tsty
|
|
response 10 of 41:
|
Jan 18 12:09 UTC 2003 |
... and yes.
|
cross
|
|
response 11 of 41:
|
Jan 18 23:57 UTC 2003 |
This more or less precludes the possibility of grex moving into a
colocation facility during the next year, doesn't it?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 12 of 41:
|
Jan 19 00:25 UTC 2003 |
No, it doesn't. It may cost us more, if we have to pay the full year on
the current place, but at least we have a home. So far, I've not heard
that there are any reasonable co-location opportunities in Ann Arbor.
I doubt we'll find one in the next 13 days.
|
aruba
|
|
response 13 of 41:
|
Jan 19 01:41 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, we're talking $80.41/month for the next year's rent, or $964.92 for
the whole year. So if we did decide to move in the middle of the year, we
would take a hit, but it wouldn't break us.
|
jep
|
|
response 14 of 41:
|
Jan 19 02:04 UTC 2003 |
Grex has got to exist somewhere. Unless there's an alternative and a
plan for moving to it, there's no choice, if the option exists to stay
where it's at now.
|
cross
|
|
response 15 of 41:
|
Jan 19 20:35 UTC 2003 |
I thought mnet had a reasonable colocation deal. Why not do what they're
doing? What's unreasonable about it?
|
jep
|
|
response 16 of 41:
|
Jan 19 22:28 UTC 2003 |
M-Net runs on PC hardware. Grex's Sun hardware probably wouldn't work
on a rack unless it were made of half-inch steel beams. There have
been gravitational effects noted by the U-M astronomy department...
|
carson
|
|
response 17 of 41:
|
Jan 19 23:14 UTC 2003 |
(there's also the matter of losing the legacy phone number; in exchange
for its co-location deal, M-Net had to give up a phone number that had
been identified with it for many, many years. I cringe when I think of
the poor soul who was next to get that number.) ;)
(that's not to say that co-location isn't a way to go, but rather to note
that there likely would be sacrifices to be made that would counterbalance
to varying degrees any benefits.)
|
scott
|
|
response 18 of 41:
|
Jan 19 23:22 UTC 2003 |
Re 15: You write as if colocation was the clearly preferred situation, which
is not something that we've agreed upon.
|
mdw
|
|
response 19 of 41:
|
Jan 20 01:45 UTC 2003 |
I've talked with several people, *very* informally, about colocating
stuff in A^2. None of these deals is likely to happen in the next 13
days. Unless the NSA suddenly decides they would like to rent us a room
so as to make it easier for them to spy on us, I doubt we'll ever find
any deal that doesn't entail major sacrifice or interesting tradeoffs.
Dan Cross may not realize it, but "space" in A^2 is pricey. Most of the
really good colocation space in SE Michigan is located in downtown
Detroit where there is a lot more fiber and connectivity (and car
thieves.) Umich moved a lot of its "central" computing infrastructure to
a converted parking garage on the other side of the expressway (outside
of city limits), and Umich's modem pool is now located in Flint. There
are interesting "exceptions" to this; Cisco has a very nice machine room
located in a store front at Main & Huron - but that's only because even
Ann Arbor store front property looks cheap compared to anything in
silicon valley. The old Michigan Bell building that presumably still
contains Ann Arbor's phone switches apparently has spare space now - and
a nice sign saying "colocation entrance". I haven't yet managed to find
any information on how much they want. Probably that's because I'm not
a fortune 500 company and can't possibly afford it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 20 of 41:
|
Jan 20 04:26 UTC 2003 |
To offer an explicit answer to #15: the most *un*reasonable thing about
M-Net's coloation deal is that it is NOT in Ann Arbor.
|
cross
|
|
response 21 of 41:
|
Jan 20 21:23 UTC 2003 |
Regarding #20; Ahh, okay, that's a good reason.
Regarding #19; You think Ann Arbor is expensive, eh? You should try
where I live.
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 41:
|
Jan 21 14:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 23 of 41:
|
Jan 21 16:40 UTC 2003 |
Regarding #22; Yes, it can.
|
malymi
|
|
response 24 of 41:
|
Jan 26 05:24 UTC 2003 |
if keeping the existing numbers were important call forwarding could
be ordered.
|
carson
|
|
response 25 of 41:
|
Jan 26 18:09 UTC 2003 |
(true. how expensive is that service? there'd also need to be
a place for the phone line[s] in Ann Arbor that would be
forwarded. I admit to not having had much experience with call
forwarding.)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 26 of 41:
|
Jan 27 03:50 UTC 2003 |
Callforwarding for all our numbers would cost the per line cost plus the $2.50
to $3.50 per month per line for call forwarding access, plus any long distance
charges from the Ann Arbor numbers to the new numbers. Quite a bit more
expensive than what we currently pay.
|
russ
|
|
response 27 of 41:
|
Jan 28 02:13 UTC 2003 |
Re #26: We'd really only need forwarding for *one* line, compared to
the seven we have now. So long as there were no per-call or per-minute
charges, it could be quite a bit cheaper.
If mesh routing via 802.11 becomes very common, it might cover most or
all of Grex's local calling area. In that case, dumping the phones
becomes common sense.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 41:
|
Jan 28 02:28 UTC 2003 |
802.11 meshing is only ever going to be practical in densely populated areas
with an unusually high concentration of tech-heads. That means college
campus areas and probably not much else. The range is too short to blanket
even a typical suburban housing development economically.
|
carson
|
|
response 29 of 41:
|
Jan 28 03:45 UTC 2003 |
(hey! guess which area has not only a college campus, but also an
unusually high concentration of tech-heads?) ;)
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 41:
|
Jan 28 14:58 UTC 2003 |
My apartment complex isn't. ;)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 31 of 41:
|
Jan 29 13:12 UTC 2003 |
re 27: Why call forwarding for only one line? Are you saying only one person
can be dialed in at a time from Ann Arbor? Multiple calls can't be call
forwarded simultaneously.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 32 of 41:
|
Jan 29 23:06 UTC 2003 |
Why not, if the accepting number is a hunt-group?
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 41:
|
Jan 31 20:56 UTC 2003 |
re #28
We're more densely populated outside of the college campus.
http://www.seattlewireless.net/
|