[127574] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: XO feedback
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Rothschild)
Fri Jul 2 19:04:53 2010
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:04:42 -0400
From: Adam Rothschild <asr+nanog@latency.net>
To: Net <funkyfun@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim-OiRJUojpRkmaxqVxp8O2h34JfSgEONXoXIgk@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Here in the New York Metro, XO's collocation offering is pretty solid.
No frills, but competently managed, and offered under a reasonable
pricing model for retail collocation.
I've had similarly positive experiences with their transport side of
the house. I've not looked at the IP product...
I certainly belive the negative XO feedback shared; having heard
similar, it would seem there's definite potential to be treated as
merely a number. At the same time, our experience has been great, and
I'd happily recommend them. I think the quality of your XO customer
experience is directly proportional to the caliber of your account
team, along with your ability to vendor-manage and assemble a suitable
escalation matrix.
As for the Savvis suggestion, I'm not sure I'd agree. We're in 2010,
yet they continue to maintain a fair number of gigabit-sized peering
interfaces, seemingly operating at or close to capacity.
HTH,
-a
