[183059] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Cogent revisited
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Greene)
Tue Aug 11 16:47:31 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Adam Greene" <maillist@webjogger.net>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAB2srOB6HQZGDrNx1xaM=x6b8OREu6x7yXadBcVwTwtCgmh_hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:47:21 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Thank you to those who replied off-list, for the helpful replies!=20
=20
The feedback basically ranged from neutral (maybe a little positive) to =
really negative. The main emphasis being on: use them only if you are =
redundant.
=20
Seems like things haven=E2=80=99t changed much since 2012.=20
=20
Thanks!
=20
On Aug 11, 2015 19:32, "Adam Greene" <maillist@webjogger.net =
<mailto:maillist@webjogger.net> > wrote:
Hi all,
We are getting ready to renew our fiber contract with our incumbent =
provider
(Lightower, ASN 46887). We are happy with them, but are looking for
alternatives. At the location in question we need about 200M.
Cogent recently contacted us, and I shied away a bit, based on this
conversation a few years ago:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-May/048181.html
Have opinions changed since then? Or is Cogent still the "budget =
alternative
to have in your mix, but better to stay away from if you need
high-performance, reliable, mostly standalone bandwidth" (which is how I
would summarize the consensus in 2012)?
Thanks,
Adam
