[152790] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Tue May 15 20:27:28 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAHnQ7eJNWrwGExc+2L903OyAnABAz6Q8FEwdUX43c3JQ2RWjBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 19:26:50 -0500
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Paul WALL <pauldotwall@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 5/14/12, Paul WALL <pauldotwall@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cogent is really better suited as a tertiary provider.
> Not a bad option, but you don't want to lose redundancy when they get
> involved in their peering dispute or de-peering du jour.
I'll agree with that; if you have less than 3 upstreams; Cogent sounds risky
for that very reason. If you have at least 3 upstreams for your network,
and you make sure they don't share common modes of failure, such as
the same fiber, then Cogents' service may be a suitable choice for one of those.
If you are serious about network availability, triple redundancy is the bare
minimum anyways, because there are lots of bad things that can happen
to an upstream network or their cabling that may take 24+ hours to repair,
during which time a single SFP failure, router maintenance on the
remaining upstream, or lots of other smaller more common equipment
glitches may incur total outage, before there is any real chance
to recover redundancy.
Least cost options of achieving triple and quad-redundancy are attractive
> Drive Slow,
> Paul Wall
--
-JH
