[152783] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John van Oppen)
Tue May 15 17:48:03 2012
From: John van Oppen <jvanoppen@spectrumnet.us>
To: 'Tim Vollebregt' <tim@interworx.nl>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:47:11 +0000
In-Reply-To: <0AB7B4E0-7138-41FC-A4A5-3481D88E123A@interworx.nl>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We have cogent in the mix, and I do have to say one gets what one pays for.=
.. They are a no redundancy, no extra capacity kind of shop... This of=
ten is noticeable when they have fiber cuts or equipment failures, it also =
results in a lot more service affecting maintenance than our other provider=
s.
That being said, we have several 10Gs to them as one of our five upstreams,=
we mostly use them for on-net traffic and a couple of selected peers where=
they seem not to have congestion issues. My biggest bone to pick with =
them though is their incredibly crappy BGP community offering. They hav=
e no selective (ie per peer) announcement control options which severely li=
mits our ability to use them more since we end up sending their "perpend to=
[all] peers" community instead of just prepending to the peers we don't li=
ke the return routes on.
Thanks,
John @ AS11404
