[152750] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Palmer)
Tue May 15 00:40:24 2012
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:39:49 +1000
From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4FB1BF2D.4010605@thebaughers.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:27:57PM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote:
> On 5/14/2012 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Jason Baugher"<jason@thebaughers.com>
> >>I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
> >>3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
> >Really? That surprises me; people complain about Cogent on here, roughly,
> >weekly. :-)
>
> Sorry, been on this list for quite some time, and I even went back
> to the archives. I don't see much there that is specific to Cogent
> doing a bad job. If I go back a few years, I find stuff about
> Cogent-Telia, Cogent-GBX, and even Cogent-HE IPv6 peering.
So when you play "What's the common factor?", you get... ? <grin>
We decided not to use Cogent as one of the suppliers for a recent PoP
deployment because of these sorts of games -- it's not that we'd get caught
in them (we've got three providers), but we just don't want to reward that
sort of behaviour with our money.
- Matt
