nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
From: "Brandon Galbraith" <brandon.galbraith () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:59:23 -0600
On 1/12/09, Jim Shankland <nanog () shankland org> wrote:
Adam Young wrote:I wouldn't take my word for it but truthfully, you get what you pay for. Given you have other, more reliable transit, adding Cogent may be ok. I wouldn't rely on it for anything serious though.That has not been my experience. Peering wars have been an issue, but aside from that, they've been fine. (This is transit in San Francisco at the gigabit-plus level.) Jim Shankland
Seconded. We also have Cogent for gigabit transit. I had far more problems in the short time we used Level3 for transit than I've had with Cogent. -brandon -- Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: brandon.galbraith () gmail com
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread), (continued)
- Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread) Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread) Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread) Martin List-Petersen (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread) Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread) Jeffrey Lyon (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0 Martin List-Petersen (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0 Seth Mattinen (Jan 12)
- RE: Cogent Haiku v2.0 John van Oppen (Jan 14)
- Re: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0] Jim Shankland (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0] Brandon Galbraith (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0 Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 12)
- Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0 Jack Bates (Jan 12)