Re: PathControl vs. Internap(hardware)

["Richard J. Sears" <rsears () adnc com>]

Hi Dave,

We utilize the 5014 box from Pathcontrol (having been connected to
Internap before that) and it works great.

We have just upgraded to the near latest software rev after waiting
through the .0 and .1 releases.

I can tell you that the box operates like they say it does. We have a
total of 6 backbones, adding another 3 or 4 in the next month and it
does not break a sweat keeping up with all the traffic.

While I liked the Internap model, it shifted greatly from what we were
sold and I had to find a way to keep my customers happy. I needed 
best performance routing and we found out that what we had been
getting was least cost routing. In my case, it was getting the
PathControl box and connecting to a bunch of backbones.

In looking at all the hardware solutions, we looked at NetVMG before
they were acquired by Internap and were not impressed with their product
for a variety of reason.

Hope this helps.




On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:03:34 -0500 (EST)
Dave Temkin <dave () ordinaryworld com> wrote:

> Has anyone done any comparisons recently?  I know that RouteScience
> changed their model of not providing the hardware anymore, but I was
> overall satisfied with their product when I had it before.  Has anyone
> stacked the Internap (former NetVMG/Sockeye) soft against the
> PathControl software?
>
> What were your impressions if so?
>
> Thanks,
> -Dave


******************************************
Richard J. Sears
Vice President         
American Internet Services                          
----------------------------------------------------
rsears () adnc com
http://www.adnc.com
----------------------------------------------------
858.576.4272 - Phone
858.427.2401 - Fax
INOC-DBA - 6130
----------------------------------------------------

I fly because it releases my mind 
from the tyranny of petty things . . 


"Work like you don't need the money, love like you've
never been hurt and dance like you do when nobody's
watching."