<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Perimeter Zoning on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</title>
    <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/tags/perimeter-zoning/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Perimeter Zoning on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 12:25:00 +0800</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/tags/perimeter-zoning/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Perimeter Zoning Strategy for Data Centers: Fence, Roofline, and Airspace</title>
      <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/knowledge-base/perimeter-zoning-strategy-for-data-centers-fence-roofline-and-airspace/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/knowledge-base/perimeter-zoning-strategy-for-data-centers-fence-roofline-and-airspace/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Many data center sites still use a perimeter model that is too flat. Security planning starts at the fence, extends to the gate, and assumes the rest of the site sits inside one protected bubble. That model is no longer good enough for facilities whose risk posture depends on rooftop equipment, service yards, loading access, and low-altitude awareness as much as on pedestrian or vehicle intrusion at grade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is not that fences have stopped mattering. The problem is that the facility boundary and the operational boundary are no longer the same thing. Cooling infrastructure, roof-mounted systems, generator yards, cable approaches, and overhead flight paths create security geometry that a fence-only mental model cannot represent well.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
