Patrick, I'd contend that using Cogent is a good way to reduce your cost of doing business while maintaining an acceptable level of service, not to necessarily improve reach. If your network absolutely must have the best routes you may be better off adding some other providers regardless. Best regards, Jeff On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Mike, Aside from the occasional peering wars i've never had or witnessed any serious issues with Cogent. If you want some redundancy you might also try some other similarly priced providers like WBS Connect, HE, or BtN.
(resend due to subject filter)
Plus if you had direct connectivity to Cogent, their peering status with others wouldn't affect you anymore. Personally, I've seriously considered this as a reason to get a connection from Cogent.
If you are not single-homed, you have no issues reaching Cogent even during a "peering war" - unless Cogent depeers / gets depeered from -both- (all) of your upstreams at the same time. So what value is there to add Cogent?
The value is, that Cogent pretty much is the cheapest transit you can get out there vs. paying a premium for carriers that have less clue and more outages.
Sorry for being imprecise. I meant that adding Cogent does not significantly improve your reachability. Choosing to buy from Cogent because they depeer / get depeered occasionally is silly, IMHO.
To be clear, I am making no comment on Cogent's overall performance. If you find value in adding a provider for other reasons (cost, performance, etc.), I would not argue against it.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Look for us at HostingCon 2009 in Washington, DC on August 10th - 12th at Booth #401.