Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote:

> On 06/10/05, Stephen J. Wilcox <steve () telecomplete co uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote:
> >
> > > Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet
> > > access ?
> >
> > its the same as it always was, its a marketing positive. but thats because the
> > market is dumb.
> >
> > if you wish to make your purchasing decision on 'tier-1' status thats up to you,
> > but i'll be looking at performance, price, strategy, service level and what type
> > of supplier i want for a company like mine.
> >
> > cogent is cheap and you get what you pay for. level3 is mid-price, but they
> > really dont care much about their customers (or thats what i found). perhaps you
> > want better customer service or to deal with a smaller company to gain their
> > attention and respect.
>
> I didn't mean for this to sound so much like a question, but I belive
> I posted before my first cup of coffee.
>
> This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind
> of event happen.
> Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will guarantee that you
> are affected by this every time it happens.
>
> Now, is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling
> internet access ?

how would purchasing from a tier-2 be any different (and by historical 
definition cogent is a tier-2), i've seen networks intentionally block routes 
from competitors for various reasons, and ultimately this is about your level of 
connectivity to the parts of the Internet

anyone can have connectivity issues either by choice or by accident, you have to 
decide whether your chosen supplier is giving you a service level you are happy 
with for the price, what the risks are and what failure modes they are likely to 
present.

Steve