Thanks. What's an eyeball network ? How do you know my "current mix is decent" ? Btw, I have onsite the cdn's aanp, ggc, oca, fna, so only about ~60% of my customer traffic is from Internet uplinks... ~40% is served from local cdn's Aaron
On May 16, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Jared Geiger <jared@compuwizz.net> wrote:
If most of your traffic is for US based destinations, you might see worse performance since Sparkle doesn't seem to have many US POPs/Peering locations compared to Centurylink/Level3 or HE. You'd probably benefit more by pulling in some peering from Dallas than adding or replacing a transit provider as your current mix is decent for an eyeball network. Pick up peering with Cloudflare, Netflix, Amazon, EdgeCast, Facebook, Apple, Akamai, and Microsoft in Dallas and you might even be able to get rid of one of your transit providers.
Sparkle would "shine" if you were a US hosting provider with many eyeballs in Europe/Africa/Middle East.
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 16/May/18 16:54, Aaron Gould wrote:
.written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is it still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle, since they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet presence)
I don't know about "owning" the Internet, but I would agree with the article re: the 7 key global transit providers as things stand in 2018.
It matches up with our own compliment of transit providers in our network (AS37100).
My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering Sparkle as an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio, TX . we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow. He mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly, in the future be in Austin or San Antonio
My initial experience with TI Sparkle was in South East Asia back in '08. They were decent.
We have them in our stable, and like them for their South American coverage.
Mark.