[110584] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Galbraith)
Mon Jan 12 14:03:43 2009
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:59:23 -0600
From: "Brandon Galbraith" <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
To: nanog@shankland.org
In-Reply-To: <496B8BAA.4090901@shankland.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 1/12/09, Jim Shankland <nanog@shankland.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
Seconded. We also have Cogent for gigabit transit. I had far more problems
in the short time we used Level3 for transit than I've had with Cogent.
-brandon
--
Brandon Galbraith
Voice: 630.400.6992
Email: brandon.galbraith@gmail.com
