We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with <provider> because they don't have their own backbone. Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this just something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, Sprint, and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ? One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) Thanks, Rick
Hello... On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 12:32, Rick Ernst wrote:
We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with <provider> because they don't have their own backbone.
Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this just something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, Sprint, and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ?
One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on
I use Level-3 out of the LA Equinix facility. From a content provider point of view, they rule. I have never had a problem with them, solid as a rock.
reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :)
I hope more people respond to this part "for future reference".
Thanks, Rick -- Christopher McCrory "The guy that keeps the servers running"
chrismcc@pricegrabber.com http://www.pricegrabber.com Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is no defense. I tried it. Only tinfoil works.
Rick Ernst wrote:
One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :)
Look for one which has working abuse department which actually takes action. Example of one which doesn´t would be the likes of Cogent. Verio comes to mind. Pete
Hi there Rick! On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Rick Ernst wrote:
We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with <provider> because they don't have their own backbone.
Alot of carriers that have a "Nationwide backbone" actually lease their circuits (Layer 1 and 2) through various other carriers.
Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this just something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, Sprint, and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ?
Wish I knew of one. Just keep in mind, though, that just because a carrier does not own it's own fiber / long-haul circuits does not mean they suck. It's the routers that are doing the work for the customer. A circuit is a circuit: it either works or it doesn't (wish I could say the same for IP routers.) For some people, this is a big issue (especially if the carrier is in or just coming out of Chapter 11 :-) .)
One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :)
We just migrated from Genuity to Level 3 down in Miami, FL. With careful planning, the total downtime was about 5 seconds. The engineer I worked with was excellent and very professional. Level 3 had an issue this past weekend that caused latency issues (due to the worm or some DDoS attack of a customer of theirs in Puerto Rico). We had some issues and it took a few hours to resolve, but that was it. Level 3's NOC and TMG were top-notch in talking to me and did not hold any information back. They are one of the nicest NOC groups I have ever spoken to. I have to give Level 3 a thumbs up. They really have a nice network and a good NOC/engineering staff. Hope this information helps you out. Matt
In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:39:42PM -0500, Matthew Sweet wrote:
Alot of carriers that have a "Nationwide backbone" actually lease their circuits (Layer 1 and 2) through various other carriers.
There are actually a lot more layers than that, not that most people interested in buying a circuit should care. Possible ownership changes occur at: - Owner of the right of way. - Owner of the duct. - Owner of the cable in the duct. - Owner of the fiber in the cable. - Owner of the wavelength on the fiber. - Owner of the circuit on the wavelength. - Owner of the channel on the circuit. - Owner of the VC on the channel (at least, for MPLS, ATM, and Frame) - Owner of the router. (I'll stop there for backbone purposes.) When people ask about ownership, I think they generally want to know the answer to three related questions: 1) Do you have the ability to turn up additional capacity "in time"? 2) Do you own the right bits of infrastructure so you can control cost (with right being the operative word, not a specific level)? 3) Do you have enough control over the chain above such that it won't be broken if someone who owns another part goes Chapter 7|11? I do wonder who owns it all. Most companies, even if they own their own fiber (fiber in the cable, or cable in the duct) don't own the duct or right of way. Many of the right of way owners don't do circuit or IP services at all. As a practical matter, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot where the divide is, as long as the company has it structured so the answers to those three questions are positive. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
I guess it depends on your traffic type and destination. Level 3 has a lot of connectivity to content providers such as yahoo and microsoft. As Joel P pointed out they have been a reliable backbone with a lot of capacity. They also have knowledgeable peering people although they lean towards the restrictive side on policy (starting about a 18 months ago) Dave At 12:32 -0700 8/27/03, Rick Ernst wrote:
We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with <provider> because they don't have their own backbone.
Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this just something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, Sprint, and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ?
One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :)
Thanks, Rick
participants (6)
-
Christopher McCrory -
David Diaz -
Leo Bicknell -
Matthew Sweet -
Petri Helenius -
Rick Ernst