I understand. I tend to take a more market by market view of each network rather than a global perspective. Clearly, for the enterprise use case with a diversity of users spread across the globe, or even nationally, the use case is a bit different. Having said that, I am rather terribly curious... I’ve not really seen any of the major national non-eyeballs who didn’t have congestion at some peering points to major eyeball networks for not insignificant periods. Which transit have you found to be the very best for minimizing those concerns in the general case?
On Mar 14, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed with multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we wanted to peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the only choice for some of our employees.
Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has been reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if VOIP and VPN aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet loss makes your access useless, then avoid them if it all possible. YMMV.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mhardeman@ipifony.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> Cc: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made serious strides in improving this.
In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT&T and Verizon at this point.
As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys if they’re part of the market you serve.
My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, if they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major cable providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit from them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no- export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.)
The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a significant impact in many cases.
On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, with buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM To: James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
s/single-homed/dual-homed/
It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is acceptable.
Hi James,
Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider in one's mix.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>