The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question... I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business. Thanks, Jason
In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we never had packet loss. --John On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
Jason, I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better than most and the deliver what they say or better. In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout their network. We do also use Level3 (and others). As long as they come in to your facility on different fiber or otherwise meet you physical diversity requirements, you should be pretty happy. Add low commits to other providers for more diversity as needed. Good luck, Mike On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 15:12 -0700, John T. Yocum wrote:
In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we never had packet loss.
--John
On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
-- ************************************************************ Michael J. McCafferty CEO M5 Hosting http://www.m5hosting.com Like us on Facebook for updates and photos: https://www.facebook.com/m5hosting ************************************************************
Cogent is really better suited as a tertiary provider. Not a bad option, but you don't want to lose redundancy when they get involved in their peering dispute or de-peering du jour. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On 5/14/12, Michael J McCafferty <mike@m5computersecurity.com> wrote:
Jason,
I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better than most and the deliver what they say or better.
In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout their network.
We do also use Level3 (and others). As long as they come in to your facility on different fiber or otherwise meet you physical diversity requirements, you should be pretty happy. Add low commits to other providers for more diversity as needed.
Good luck, Mike
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 15:12 -0700, John T. Yocum wrote:
In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we never had packet loss.
--John
On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
-- ************************************************************ Michael J. McCafferty CEO M5 Hosting http://www.m5hosting.com
Like us on Facebook for updates and photos: https://www.facebook.com/m5hosting ************************************************************
+1 here. Some would say if you are of a certain size, you almost NEED to have a Cogent connection amongst others for when they have their spats. If you are missing the history here, check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogent_Communications#Peering -Scott -----Original Message----- From: Paul WALL [mailto:pauldotwall@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:58 PM To: Michael J McCafferty Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth Cogent is really better suited as a tertiary provider. Not a bad option, but you don't want to lose redundancy when they get involved in their peering dispute or de-peering du jour. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On 5/14/12, Michael J McCafferty <mike@m5computersecurity.com> wrote:
Jason,
I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better than most and the deliver what they say or better.
In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout their network.
We do also use Level3 (and others). As long as they come in to your facility on different fiber or otherwise meet you physical diversity requirements, you should be pretty happy. Add low commits to other providers for more diversity as needed.
Good luck, Mike
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 15:12 -0700, John T. Yocum wrote:
In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we never had packet loss.
--John
On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
-- ************************************************************ Michael J. McCafferty CEO M5 Hosting http://www.m5hosting.com
Like us on Facebook for updates and photos: https://www.facebook.com/m5hosting ************************************************************
On 5/14/12, Paul WALL <pauldotwall@gmail.com> wrote:
Cogent is really better suited as a tertiary provider. Not a bad option, but you don't want to lose redundancy when they get involved in their peering dispute or de-peering du jour.
I'll agree with that; if you have less than 3 upstreams; Cogent sounds risky for that very reason. If you have at least 3 upstreams for your network, and you make sure they don't share common modes of failure, such as the same fiber, then Cogents' service may be a suitable choice for one of those. If you are serious about network availability, triple redundancy is the bare minimum anyways, because there are lots of bad things that can happen to an upstream network or their cabling that may take 24+ hours to repair, during which time a single SFP failure, router maintenance on the remaining upstream, or lots of other smaller more common equipment glitches may incur total outage, before there is any real chance to recover redundancy. Least cost options of achieving triple and quad-redundancy are attractive
Drive Slow, Paul Wall -- -JH
I use Cogent as one of our upstreams at work, and I'll basically reiterate what others have said -- overall, I'd have no problems recommending them. Their routing can sometimes be a little weird (though this is MUCH better now than it was a couple of years ago), so I wouldn't necessarily use them as my main provider for latency-sensitive applications, but this isn't normally a problem with 'general' traffic. The A peer/B peer stuff they used to do was definitely weird, but they migrated us away from that configuration a few months ago (peering with them out of TorIX). Presumably they're doing that across the rest of their network. Their support has been fantastic in my experience.. I'd have to say they're probably the least painful provider I've dealt with overall (unlike some providers *cough*Telus*cough* who I've been waiting 7 weeks for to set up a freaking BGP session...). I'd have no problems picking Cogent as a provider, though of course as one of many providers for redundancy (which would be no different than any other single provider). - Pete On 5/14/2012 6:33 PM, Michael J McCafferty wrote:
Jason,
I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better than most and the deliver what they say or better.
In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout their network.
We do also use Level3 (and others). As long as they come in to your facility on different fiber or otherwise meet you physical diversity requirements, you should be pretty happy. Add low commits to other providers for more diversity as needed.
Good luck, Mike
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 15:12 -0700, John T. Yocum wrote:
In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we never had packet loss.
--John
On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
Michael J McCafferty wrote:
Jason,
I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better than most and the deliver what they say or better.
In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout their network.
I like the separate peers. Its a nice concept in theory and gives you the flexibility to easily integrate it into an RR setup. I wouldnt mind more providers offering it as an option without having to be educated as to how it works. Joe
I have very little issues with Cogent in the Chicago/Indiana/St. Louis areas. They are peered much better than they were a few years ago. We have 1 client at Cermack purchasing Cogent bandwidth through a third party at well under $1 a meg. Justin -- Justin Wilson <j2sw@mtin.net> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw Follow me on Twitter -----Original Message----- From: Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com> Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:03 PM To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Baugher" <jason@thebaughers.com>
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
Really? That surprises me; people complain about Cogent on here, roughly, weekly. :-)
For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
The implication of everyone's "in a BGP mix" responses, in case you don't get it (and I suspect you might not) is that you don't want Cogent to be your *only* upstream provider. If you're going to resell the bandwidth as an ISP, best practice says you should have at least 2 upstreams. 3 or more is better, Cogent has had a bad habit the last 5 or 10 years of getting into pissing matches with other carriers about peering, and just cutting them off (or being cut off)... which of course means that if they're your only connection to the Internet, then your customers simply can't reach sites connected to those providers. So, in short: no matter how agressive they are, they're not the carrier to have when you're having only one. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Baugher"<jason@thebaughers.com> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. Really? That surprises me; people complain about Cogent on here, roughly, weekly. :-) Sorry, been on this list for quite some time, and I even went back to
On 5/14/2012 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: the archives. I don't see much there that is specific to Cogent doing a bad job. If I go back a few years, I find stuff about Cogent-Telia, Cogent-GBX, and even Cogent-HE IPv6 peering.
For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business. The implication of everyone's "in a BGP mix" responses, in case you don't get it (and I suspect you might not) is that you don't want Cogent to be your *only* upstream provider.
If you're going to resell the bandwidth as an ISP, best practice says you should have at least 2 upstreams. 3 or more is better, This would be a 3rd or possibly a 4th upstream. Cogent has had a bad habit the last 5 or 10 years of getting into pissing matches with other carriers about peering, and just cutting them off (or being cut off)... which of course means that if they're your only connection to the Internet, then your customers simply can't reach sites connected to those providers.
So, in short: no matter how agressive they are, they're not the carrier to have when you're having only one.
Cheers, -- jra
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:27:57PM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote:
On 5/14/2012 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Baugher"<jason@thebaughers.com> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. Really? That surprises me; people complain about Cogent on here, roughly, weekly. :-)
Sorry, been on this list for quite some time, and I even went back to the archives. I don't see much there that is specific to Cogent doing a bad job. If I go back a few years, I find stuff about Cogent-Telia, Cogent-GBX, and even Cogent-HE IPv6 peering.
So when you play "What's the common factor?", you get... ? <grin> We decided not to use Cogent as one of the suppliers for a recent PoP deployment because of these sorts of games -- it's not that we'd get caught in them (we've got three providers), but we just don't want to reward that sort of behaviour with our money. - Matt
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
I often tell folks, Cogent is the 'Heidi Fleiss' of the industry ...... pretty much everyone of the major carriers / providers deal with them.. but no one wants to admit it. I don't think there is any carrier out there that could be considered 'Premium' in terms of quality of service (yeah their are a lot of folks who are Premium based on what they charge)... One can only hedge one's bet for a quality connection by having multiple providers (you can mix and match) or go with some one like Internap or Tinet (folks who are taking traffic across multiple providers at their POP). Of course your mileage may vary.... as long as you have alternate connectivity, it makes dealing with issues more palatable, whether it is Cogent or Level3... Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom On 5/14/2012 10:38 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi
On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher<jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
Has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with all the major carriers , they are a budget provider , always have , always will be. Aside from that what matters the most is eye ball user connectivity and level3 , AT&T, Verizon significantly have more eye balls connected directly to there network then cogent , we have cogent and level3 and 5 other providers on our Chicago network , with out any traffic engineering almost every thing will come in or go out level3, we use traffic optimizing equipment to automate our commit levels and also do performance based routing adjustments , I literally have to put a gun to its head to get a descent amount of traffic out to cogent , you may say it's a matter of opinion but statistics don't lie, even Telia out performs cogent according to stats , not just cause they have a massive eye ball network in Europe. Ask yourself , who are the majority customers of cogent? Not end user ISPs , hosting companies aka content providers, and when there selling bandwidth cheaper then it costs to peer then there going to keep there costs to the minimum ... Cheaper is cheaper , the saying is true , you get what you pay for. A Kia and Ferrari can both get me from point a to point b, but the Ferrari is capable of getting me there way quicker, and yes I'm going to pay a premium for it but if I'm going from NYC to San Fran I'd definitely feel safer in the Ferrari reliability wise and get there a hell of a lot quicker... But like I said and the other 10 replies nothing wrong with cogent in a nice blend of 3 or more other providers ... Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi On May 14, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappydsl.net> wrote:
I often tell folks, Cogent is the 'Heidi Fleiss' of the industry ...... pretty much everyone of the major carriers / providers deal with them.. but no one wants to admit it.
I don't think there is any carrier out there that could be considered 'Premium' in terms of quality of service (yeah their are a lot of folks who are Premium based on what they charge)...
One can only hedge one's bet for a quality connection by having multiple providers (you can mix and match) or go with some one like Internap or Tinet (folks who are taking traffic across multiple providers at their POP).
Of course your mileage may vary.... as long as you have alternate connectivity, it makes dealing with issues more palatable, whether it is Cogent or Level3...
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom
On 5/14/2012 10:38 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi
On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher<jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
Let me say it differently. Take a look at thier AS174 peering relationship, (e.g using bgp.he.net), you can see that they (Cogent) are very well connected (directly) with all of the major networks. (this is what I meant by, they deal with all of the major carriers). Your experience with traffic is very different from what we have seen, while I can understand that, it can be due to many factors. Based on AS Peering relationships, it would appear that Major / Most of the end user ISP's have them in their mix. I my opinion the Hosting providers use Cogent as a way to off load incoming traffic from the more expensive carriers. Cogent performance is very decent if the traffic is all on-net ... they typically have issues when traffic is crossing their network, i.e. coming in and going out via their peers to other networks. While the Kia and Ferrari example is cute, but when put into the context of 'Traffic' or 'Speed limit', then neither has the advantage. One might look good driving in a Ferrari.. but I digress.... packets are agnostic of what brand of router they are traveling thru or whose network they are transiting. We are in agreement, that Cogent makes a good backup secondary or tertiary in a mix of Ip transit. However having said that it is valuable to check the bgp peering relationships of the different providers that you have, to make sure that you are choosing providers based on actual diversity rather than a perceived one. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom On 5/15/2012 12:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
Has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with all the major carriers , they are a budget provider , always have , always will be. Aside from that what matters the most is eye ball user connectivity and level3 , AT&T, Verizon significantly have more eye balls connected directly to there network then cogent , we have cogent and level3 and 5 other providers on our Chicago network , with out any traffic engineering almost every thing will come in or go out level3, we use traffic optimizing equipment to automate our commit levels and also do performance based routing adjustments , I literally have to put a gun to its head to get a descent amount of traffic out to cogent , you may say it's a matter of opinion but statistics don't lie, even Telia out performs cogent according to stats , not just cause they have a massive eye ball network in Europe.
Ask yourself , who are the majority customers of cogent? Not end user ISPs , hosting companies aka content providers, and when there selling bandwidth cheaper then it costs to peer then there going to keep there costs to the minimum ... Cheaper is cheaper , the saying is true , you get what you pay for.
A Kia and Ferrari can both get me from point a to point b, but the Ferrari is capable of getting me there way quicker, and yes I'm going to pay a premium for it but if I'm going from NYC to San Fran I'd definitely feel safer in the Ferrari reliability wise and get there a hell of a lot quicker...
But like I said and the other 10 replies nothing wrong with cogent in a nice blend of 3 or more other providers ...
Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi
On May 14, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz<faisal@snappydsl.net> wrote:
I often tell folks, Cogent is the 'Heidi Fleiss' of the industry ...... pretty much everyone of the major carriers / providers deal with them.. but no one wants to admit it.
I don't think there is any carrier out there that could be considered 'Premium' in terms of quality of service (yeah their are a lot of folks who are Premium based on what they charge)...
One can only hedge one's bet for a quality connection by having multiple providers (you can mix and match) or go with some one like Internap or Tinet (folks who are taking traffic across multiple providers at their POP).
Of course your mileage may vary.... as long as you have alternate connectivity, it makes dealing with issues more palatable, whether it is Cogent or Level3...
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom
On 5/14/2012 10:38 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi
On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher<jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before. We've worked with Sprint for years, and they have always been excellent for reliability and support. We recently picked up Level3, and so far they have been very good as well. It's a small thing, maybe, but I like that both Sprint and Level3 have nice online tools for change requests, trouble tickets, etc... We've been a Lightcore/CenturyLink customer for years as well, also very reliable. They don't have the slick online tools, but I can usually get a live person in their NOC. Cogent is being very aggressive with their pricing, and if it weren't for the fact that we are geographically challenged and have to pay for transport to get to them, we might have already taken them up on it. Thanks for all the input from everyone. Jason 5/15/2012 8:00 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Let me say it differently.
Take a look at thier AS174 peering relationship, (e.g using bgp.he.net), you can see that they (Cogent) are very well connected (directly) with all of the major networks. (this is what I meant by, they deal with all of the major carriers).
Your experience with traffic is very different from what we have seen, while I can understand that, it can be due to many factors.
Based on AS Peering relationships, it would appear that Major / Most of the end user ISP's have them in their mix. I my opinion the Hosting providers use Cogent as a way to off load incoming traffic from the more expensive carriers. Cogent performance is very decent if the traffic is all on-net ... they typically have issues when traffic is crossing their network, i.e. coming in and going out via their peers to other networks.
While the Kia and Ferrari example is cute, but when put into the context of 'Traffic' or 'Speed limit', then neither has the advantage. One might look good driving in a Ferrari.. but I digress.... packets are agnostic of what brand of router they are traveling thru or whose network they are transiting.
We are in agreement, that Cogent makes a good backup secondary or tertiary in a mix of Ip transit. However having said that it is valuable to check the bgp peering relationships of the different providers that you have, to make sure that you are choosing providers based on actual diversity rather than a perceived one.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom
On 5/15/2012 12:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
Has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with all the major carriers , they are a budget provider , always have , always will be. Aside from that what matters the most is eye ball user connectivity and level3 , AT&T, Verizon significantly have more eye balls connected directly to there network then cogent , we have cogent and level3 and 5 other providers on our Chicago network , with out any traffic engineering almost every thing will come in or go out level3, we use traffic optimizing equipment to automate our commit levels and also do performance based routing adjustments , I literally have to put a gun to its head to get a descent amount of traffic out to cogent , you may say it's a matter of opinion but statistics don't lie, even Telia out performs cogent according to stats , not just cause they have a massive eye ball network in Europe.
Ask yourself , who are the majority customers of cogent? Not end user ISPs , hosting companies aka content providers, and when there selling bandwidth cheaper then it costs to peer then there going to keep there costs to the minimum ... Cheaper is cheaper , the saying is true , you get what you pay for.
A Kia and Ferrari can both get me from point a to point b, but the Ferrari is capable of getting me there way quicker, and yes I'm going to pay a premium for it but if I'm going from NYC to San Fran I'd definitely feel safer in the Ferrari reliability wise and get there a hell of a lot quicker...
But like I said and the other 10 replies nothing wrong with cogent in a nice blend of 3 or more other providers ...
Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi
On May 14, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz<faisal@snappydsl.net> wrote:
I often tell folks, Cogent is the 'Heidi Fleiss' of the industry ...... pretty much everyone of the major carriers / providers deal with them.. but no one wants to admit it.
I don't think there is any carrier out there that could be considered 'Premium' in terms of quality of service (yeah their are a lot of folks who are Premium based on what they charge)...
One can only hedge one's bet for a quality connection by having multiple providers (you can mix and match) or go with some one like Internap or Tinet (folks who are taking traffic across multiple providers at their POP).
Of course your mileage may vary.... as long as you have alternate connectivity, it makes dealing with issues more palatable, whether it is Cogent or Level3...
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom
On 5/14/2012 10:38 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi
On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher<jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even exists. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before.
The only issue I saw with bgp.he.net is that it updates after 24hrs which makes it hard to use for any recently made changes. But for rest works pretty good. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Ren Provo <ren.provo@gmail.com> wrote:
Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even exists.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before.
-- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>| Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>
+1 for Cogent in the mix :) People with a clue in their NOC, near zero routing issues in last 1,5 years. On May 15, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
The only issue I saw with bgp.he.net is that it updates after 24hrs which makes it hard to use for any recently made changes. But for rest works pretty good.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Ren Provo <ren.provo@gmail.com> wrote:
Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even exists.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before.
--
Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network!
Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>| Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>
We have cogent in the mix, and I do have to say one gets what one pays for... They are a no redundancy, no extra capacity kind of shop... This often is noticeable when they have fiber cuts or equipment failures, it also results in a lot more service affecting maintenance than our other providers. That being said, we have several 10Gs to them as one of our five upstreams, we mostly use them for on-net traffic and a couple of selected peers where they seem not to have congestion issues. My biggest bone to pick with them though is their incredibly crappy BGP community offering. They have no selective (ie per peer) announcement control options which severely limits our ability to use them more since we end up sending their "perpend to [all] peers" community instead of just prepending to the peers we don't like the return routes on. Thanks, John @ AS11404
I liked Cogent when we had them years ago but due to routing instability (off the charts) and unplanned down time every single month we dropped them..... they call me every 3-6 months (different person each time) and I tell them to go away.... Paul -----Original Message----- From: Tim Vollebregt [mailto:tim@interworx.nl] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:33 PM To: nanog list Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth +1 for Cogent in the mix :) People with a clue in their NOC, near zero routing issues in last 1,5 years. On May 15, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
The only issue I saw with bgp.he.net is that it updates after 24hrs which makes it hard to use for any recently made changes. But for rest works pretty good.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Ren Provo <ren.provo@gmail.com> wrote:
Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even exists.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before.
--
Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network!
Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>| Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Paul Stewart <paul@paulstewart.org> wrote:
I liked Cogent when we had them years ago but due to routing instability (off the charts) and unplanned down time every single month we dropped them..... they call me every 3-6 months (different person each time) and I tell them to go away....
You know, if you're in the U.S., on the No Call list, and you tell them specifically not to call you again, they're doing something illegal and can be fined up to $16,000 dollars for it. Though I hear that the FTC doesn't actually enforce it too well. May want to try waving the stick at them at least. -- Darius Jahandarie
While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business to business solicitations. "The national Do-Not-Call list protects home voice or personal wireless phone numbers only. While you may be able to register a business number, your registration will not make telephone solicitations to that number unlawful." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Paul Stewart <paul@paulstewart.org> wrote:
I liked Cogent when we had them years ago but due to routing instability (off the charts) and unplanned down time every single month we dropped them..... they call me every 3-6 months (different person each time) and I tell them to go away....
You know, if you're in the U.S., on the No Call list, and you tell them specifically not to call you again, they're doing something illegal and can be fined up to $16,000 dollars for it. Though I hear that the FTC doesn't actually enforce it too well. May want to try waving the stick at them at least.
-- Darius Jahandarie
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC <paul4004@gmail.com> wrote:
While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business to business solicitations.
"The national Do-Not-Call list protects home voice or personal wireless phone numbers only. While you may be able to register a business number, your registration will not make telephone solicitations to that number unlawful." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls
Also, (from http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list ) The Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent all unwanted calls. It does not cover the following: calls from organizations with which you have established a business relationship; And, in this case, there is a previously established business relationship. Regards Marshall
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Paul Stewart <paul@paulstewart.org> wrote:
I liked Cogent when we had them years ago but due to routing instability (off the charts) and unplanned down time every single month we dropped them..... they call me every 3-6 months (different person each time) and I tell them to go away....
You know, if you're in the U.S., on the No Call list, and you tell them specifically not to call you again, they're doing something illegal and can be fined up to $16,000 dollars for it. Though I hear that the FTC doesn't actually enforce it too well. May want to try waving the stick at them at least.
-- Darius Jahandarie
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC <paul4004@gmail.com> wrote:
While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business to business solicitations.
"The national Do-Not-Call list protects home voice or personal wireless phone numbers only. While you may be able to register a business number, your registration will not make telephone solicitations to that number unlawful." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls
Also, (from http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list )
The Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent all unwanted calls. It does not cover the following:
calls from organizations with which you have established a business relationship;
And, in this case, there is a previously established business relationship.
"Because of limitations in the jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC, calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted, as would calls from companies with which you have an existing business relationship, or those to whom you’ve provided express agreement in writing to receive their calls. However, if you ask a company with which you have an existing business relationship to place your number on its own do-not-call list, it must honor your request." [1] Which seems to suggest to me, if you tell them to not call you again, they need to stop. However, I was not aware of the complications of using a business number instead of a personal number. [1] http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm -- Darius Jahandarie
Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC <paul4004@gmail.com> wrote:
While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business to business solicitations.
"The national Do-Not-Call list protects home voice or personal wireless phone numbers only. While you may be able to register a business number, your registration will not make telephone solicitations to that number unlawful." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls
Also, (from http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list )
The Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent all unwanted calls. It does not cover the following:
calls from organizations with which you have established a business relationship;
And, in this case, there is a previously established business relationship.
a) The "previously established business relationship" exemption expires 6 months after the 'business relationship' ends. (This is in the 'fine print' of the actual rules0 As the relationship in question ended several years ago, according to the prior poster, this exemption would not apply. b) Nothing in the Do-not-call rules applies to calls to business numbers. Callers to business numbers are not even required to respect a 'put me on your "do-not-call" list', or 'do not call me again' request under the DNC rules.
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC <paul4004@gmail.com> wrote:
While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business to business solicitations.
"The national Do-Not-Call list protects home voice or personal wireless phone numbers only. While you may be able to register a business number, your registration will not make telephone solicitations to that number unlawful." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls
Also, (from http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list )
The Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent all unwanted calls. It does not cover the following:
calls from organizations with which you have established a business relationship;
And, in this case, there is a previously established business relationship.
a) The "previously established business relationship" exemption expires 6 months after the 'business relationship' ends. (This is in the 'fine print' of the actual rules0 As the relationship in question ended several years ago, according to the prior poster, this exemption would not apply.
b) Nothing in the Do-not-call rules applies to calls to business numbers. Callers to business numbers are not even required to respect a 'put me on your "do-not-call" list', or 'do not call me again' request under the DNC rules.
So the moral of the story is to make sure you always make your Cogent calls from your home phone? :-) -- Darius Jahandarie
In message <CAFANWtUrROGJZF0fFAZhs8QOnZQ2W4H7DqWDCwA+pUMnqCi1KQ@mail.gmail.com> , Darius Jahandarie writes:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC <paul4004@gmail.com> wrote:
While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business to business solicitations.
"The national Do-Not-Call list protects home voice or personal wireless phone numbers only. While you may be able to register a business number, your registration will not make telephone solicitations to that number unlawful." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls
Also, (from http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list )
The Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent all unwanted calls. It does not cover the following:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0calls from organizations with which you have establi=
shed a
business relationship;
And, in this case, there is a previously established =C2=A0business rela= tionship.
a) The "previously established business relationship" exemption expires 6 =C2=A0 months after the 'business relationship' ends. (This is in the 'fi= ne =C2=A0 print' of the actual rules0 =C2=A0As the relationship in question = ended =C2=A0 several years ago, according to the prior poster, this exemption w= ould =C2=A0 not apply.
b) Nothing in the Do-not-call rules applies to calls to business numbers. =C2=A0 Callers to business numbers are not even required to respect a 'pu= t me =C2=A0 on your "do-not-call" list', or 'do not call me again' request und= er =C2=A0 the DNC rules.
So the moral of the story is to make sure you always make your Cogent calls from your home phone? :-)
--=20 Darius Jahandarie
I suspect you could just sue them for harassment if they fail to honour a request to stop calling you. do-not-call lists cover home phones, in part, as governments, world wide, recognise that individuals are not in the position to sue every company that fails to honour requests to cease and desist. Company to company battles are more even and many companies have a existing relationship with lawyers as it is needed for other reasons. There are laws in most countries that will stop this harassment. You just need to pick the right one for the circumstances. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
As previously mentioned, if you would like better representation in bgp.he.net, you can provide a feed to RIPE RIS or Routeviews, as this is where we get our data. If an adjacency is visible here, it is reported. We do not report false adjacencies. If you have a specific question about an adjacency, email me and I will provide the exact route with the AS path demonstrating the adjacency. -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 5/15/2012 11:32 AM, Ren Provo wrote:
Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even exists.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher<jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before.
Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
A Kia and Ferrari can both get me from point a to point b, but the Ferrari is capable of getting me there way quicker, and yes I'm going to pay a premium for it but if I'm going from NYC to San Fran I'd definitely feel safer in the Ferrari reliability wise and get there a hell of a lot quicker...
That's a really flawed comparison, as often is the case when using car analogies (amongst others). A kia is much safer to drive, more economical and it is much more reliable than a ferrari. The ferrari may get you there quicker, if you didn't kill yourself along the way, or you got pulled over or if the car didn't break down (or all of the above). So for a better price you have more reliability, more safety and better fuel economy. The ferrari is just for added show off, of some imaginary potential you will never reach. If you insist on lame analogies, then you can compare a ferrari with a network provider who over commits its bandwidth and is continually over utilised. There is a promise of great speed, but you won't ever get it unless you try at 3 AM at night when traffic is lowest. Have fun :-) -- Earthquake Magnitude: 4.8 Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 15:02:51 UTC Location: Southern Alaska Latitude: 61.1008; Longitude: -149.8818 Depth: 45.30 km
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:38:34PM -0500, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
That's $7.50 per 1000mbps. Sign me up! Nicolai
last time i checked .75 x 1000 = 750 On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nicolai <nicolai-nanog@chocolatine.org>wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:38:34PM -0500, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
That's $7.50 per 1000mbps. Sign me up!
Nicolai
You're using Verizon Math. ;) (If you don't know what this is, go Google it!) "0.75 cents" is not "0.75 dollars". "point 75 cents" == $0.0075. $0.0075 * 1000 = $7.50 - Peter On 12-05-15 05:51 PM, A. Pishdadi wrote:
last time i checked .75 x 1000 = 750
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nicolai<nicolai-nanog@chocolatine.org>wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:38:34PM -0500, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig That's $7.50 per 1000mbps. Sign me up!
Nicolai
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Pishdadi" <apishdadi@gmail.com>
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nicolai <nicolai-nanog@chocolatine.org>wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:38:34PM -0500, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
That's $7.50 per 1000mbps. Sign me up!
last time i checked .75 x 1000 = 750
.75 dollars times 1000 = $750, yes. But that's not what was written. *That* was .75 cents, which, yes, comes out to $7.50/gbps. Cheers, -- jr 'and please don't make me fix your quoting' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 06:49:34PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Pishdadi" <apishdadi@gmail.com>
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nicolai <nicolai-nanog@chocolatine.org>wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:38:34PM -0500, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
That's $7.50 per 1000mbps. Sign me up!
last time i checked .75 x 1000 = 750
.75 dollars times 1000 = $750, yes.
But that's not what was written. *That* was .75 cents, which, yes, comes out to $7.50/gbps.
Reminds me of the infamous "Verizon Math": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2isSJKntbg http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=verizon+math&oq=verizon+math&aq=f&aqi=g6&aql=&gs_l=youtube.3..0l6.200.1851.0.2224.12.12.0.0.0.0.153.1126.6j6.12.0...0.0.HdrCiFAtWK0 Derrick
Cheers, -- jr 'and please don't make me fix your quoting' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
We use Cogent as one our upstreams and have had nothing but stability and excellent support over the years. But as other said, you really need multiple upstreams and cannot rely just on one whether it is Cogent or any other provider. Mark On 5/14/2012 6:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
I'm surprised the IPv6 component hasn't been brought up, yet -- Cogent's IPv6 prefix coverage is smaller than most. So having even two providers is insufficient -- you really need at least three, so that if any one of the three goes down you're not IPv6-isolated. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Mark Stevens [mailto:manager@monmouth.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:22 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth We use Cogent as one our upstreams and have had nothing but stability and excellent support over the years. But as other said, you really need multiple upstreams and cannot rely just on one whether it is Cogent or any other provider. Mark On 5/14/2012 6:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
Thanks, Jason
participants (30)
-
A. Pishdadi -
Ameen Pishdadi
-
Anurag Bhatia -
Darius Jahandarie -
Derrick H. -
Faisal Imtiaz -
Frank Bulk -
Jason Baugher -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeroen van Aart -
Jimmy Hess -
Joe Maimon -
John T. Yocum -
John van Oppen -
Justin Wilson -
Mark Andrews -
Mark Stevens -
Marshall Eubanks -
Matthew Palmer -
Michael J McCafferty -
Nicolai -
Paul Stewart -
Paul WALL -
PC -
Peter Kristolaitis -
Ren Provo -
Rob Mosher -
Robert Bonomi -
Scott Berkman -
Tim Vollebregt