[98549] in North American Network Operators' Group
US transit providers with slightly better than average
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Drew Weaver)
Mon Aug 13 12:28:55 2007
From: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:35:10 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--_000_B7152C470C9BF3448ED33F16A75D81C14D04152C2Eexchangathena_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Howdy, I know with the trans-atlantic and trans-pacific conn=
ectivity being what it is these days that getting reliable (i.e. low latenc=
y < 200, low packet loss < 5% total round-trip) to countries such as AE and=
others is kind of a "shot in the dark". However, I wanted to ping the list=
and see if anyone has had 'better luck/worse luck' with particular transit=
providers. We're currently utilizing Time Warner Telecom, Level3, and Glob=
al Crossing as our transit partners and we're shopping for a fourth at this=
time, we would really like to find a transit provider with 'better' intern=
ational presence.
Any suggestions based on experience?
Thanks,
-Drew
--_000_B7152C470C9BF3448ED33F16A75D81C14D04152C2Eexchangathena_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p=3D"urn:schemas-m=
icrosoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:oa=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:offic=
e:activation" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> =
Howdy,
I know with the trans-atlantic and trans-pacific connectivity being what it=
is these
days that getting reliable (i.e. low latency < 200, low packet loss <=
5%
total round-trip) to countries such as AE and others is kind of a “sh=
ot
in the dark”. However, I wanted to ping the list and see if anyone ha=
s
had ‘better luck/worse luck’ with particular transit providers.=
We’re
currently utilizing Time Warner Telecom, Level3, and Global Crossing as our
transit partners and we’re shopping for a fourth at this time, we wou=
ld
really like to find a transit provider with ‘better’ internatio=
nal
presence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Any suggestions based on experience?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>-Drew<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_B7152C470C9BF3448ED33F16A75D81C14D04152C2Eexchangathena_--
