[98865] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Market for diversity (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Tue Aug 21 15:40:45 2007
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:40:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708211129340.11135@clifden.donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
> I don't think the target customer in this case is really in the market for
> properly physically diverse paths which provide partial 1:1. The
> target customer seems to be looking for no-frills, cheap Internet.
>
> Customers in a market for properly physically diverse paths with partial 1:1
> probably are already buying Internet from other ISPs.
I was thinking more for Cogent's backbone itself - I fully agree that
customers who need uptime need to multi-home and do their path route
homework. If a piece of fiber between two POPs on a given backbone fails
and there isn't a redundant path (i.e. both sides of a 'redundant' ring
ride through the same conduit or on different sides of the same railroad
track) and/or the L2/L3 infrastructure isn't robust enough to tolerate
such a failure without dropping customer traffic into the bit bucket,
then that's definitely a design/operations problem. While customers can't
directly influence those decisions, they can either 1) multi-home to
different carriers, or 2) vote with their wallets and take their business
elsewhere.
jms
