Re: Honest Cogent opinions without rhetoric.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, James wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:28:20AM -0600, Jay Ford wrote: > > [ .. snip .. ] > > >o lack of well-published BGP knobs, such as communities to influence > > localpref... (they apparently exist, but are not well documented that > > I've been able to find) > > have you contacted [EMAIL PROTECTED] for url to Cogent User Manual/Guide? > It's all documented there, just letting you know. So it is. I stand corrected on that point. Thanks for the reminder. I think the rest of my rambling was valid. Jay
Re: Honest Cogent opinions without rhetoric.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Drew Weaver wrote: > I am looking for user experiences for people who have purchased > transit from cogent in the 300Mbps or up range as far as performance, > stability, and any other measurable metric of quality you can come up > with. > > We have heard a lot of negatives about them, about their pricing > model, about their network, about de-peering with Level 3, etc. What we > really need is actual information. Drew: Assuming you're looking for operational detail, I'll offer some of my experience with Cogent. Note that some of this is deduced based on visible symptoms, while some is closer to fact. When I decided to go with Cogent as one of my providers, I knew I'd get no more than I was paying for. I just didn't know how that would manifest itself. Since then I've found out a few ways they reduce costs: o few spare parts, such as using a parts depot in DC to cover Chicago o fragile peering, both technically & contractually o lack of well-published BGP knobs, such as communities to influence localpref... (they apparently exist, but are not well documented that I've been able to find) o deferred hardware upgrades, such as using old 15454 cards which most folks had replaced due to stability & performance problems o limited engineering coverage, requiring their NOC folks to drag in on-call folks while you wait On the positive side: o their NOC folks are responsive & willing to try to help o it does work most of the time to reach most places o it's cheap As others have said, Cogent is a useful piece of a transit arrangement as long as you go in with your eyes open. Let me know if you want more detail on any of my experiences with them. ________ Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], phone: 319-335-, fax: 319-335-2951
Re: Internet2
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote: > Just wondering how's internet2 community/partners protecting themselves > from lawsuits of illegal use of music/movie downloads. > > In general, how are they protecting themselves from malicious code > infection spreading at internet2 speed? How are the devices coping up > with filters in place, if any? > > Like to hear what nanog community and the people who are involved w/ > internet2 connectivity think. I don't differentiate between my Internet2 connectivity & my other connectivity regarding network abuse issues. Each is a conduit for good & bad stuff, & each has a NOC when I need it. ____ Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], phone: 319-335-, fax: 319-335-2951
Re: Enterprise Multihoming
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, John Neiberger wrote: > On another list we've been having multihoming discussions again and I > wanted to get some fresh opinions from you. > > For the past few years it has been fairly common for non-ISPs to > multihome to different providers for additional redundancy in case a > single provider has problems. I know this is frowned upon now, > especially since it helped increase the number of autonomous systems and > routing table prefixes beyond what was really necessary. It seems to me > that a large number of companies that did this could just have well > ordered multiple, geographically separate links to the same provider. > > What is the prevailing wisdom now? At what point do you feel that it is > justified for a non-ISP to multihome to multiple providers? I ask > because we have three links: two from Sprint and one from Global > Crossing. I'm considering dropping the GC circuit and adding another > geographically-diverse connection to Sprint, and then removing BGP from > our routers. > > I see a few upsides to this, but are there any real downsides? Many/most of my external connectivity problems are provider-related rather than circuit-related. Having two circuits to a single provider doesn't help when that provider is broken. I'm not saying that multi-ISP BGP-based multi-homing is risk-free, but I don't see multi-circuit single-provider as a viable alternative. Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], phone: 319-335-, fax: 319-335-2951
Re: IPv6
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, E.B. Dreger wrote: > PH> One word; multihoming. > > How many billion different interdomain routing policies do we > really need? Just 1 is enough to cause trouble. Given strict provider-based addressing, multihoming leads to rather nasty interactions between host-based selection of (source address, destination address) & things like the following: o routing policy o anti-spoofing... filtering o quality of service The IETF drafts I've read have not yet offered what I consider viable solutions to those issues. ________ Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], phone: 319-335-, fax: 319-335-2951
