[110578] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Mon Jan 12 13:31:50 2009
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:27:54 -0800
From: Jim Shankland <nanog@shankland.org>
To: Adam Young <adam.young@mountaincable.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <496B86F1.60506@mountaincable.on.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: nanog@shankland.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Adam Young wrote:
> I wouldn't take my word for it but truthfully, you get what you pay for.
> Given you have other, more reliable transit, adding Cogent may be ok.
> I wouldn't rely on it for anything serious though.
That has not been my experience. Peering wars have been an issue, but
aside from that, they've been fine. (This is transit in San Francisco
at the gigabit-plus level.)
Jim Shankland
