RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com>]

I wouldn't say that I know what's best. We have had many different providers over the last 20 years that I have been 
here. We never had an issue with any of them until we added Cogent into the mix. Currently we are using a 300MB 
lighttower and a 300MB LighPath metro Ethernet connection. 

From my experience VPN software (both IPSEC and SSLVPN) are very susceptible to high packet loss issues. A few 
retransmissions/out of order/dropped packets aren't a problem. A sustained drop rate of 5-10% is a major issue.

----
Matthew Huff             | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC       | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff        | Fax:   914-694-5669


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mhardeman () ipifony com]
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:32 PM
> To: Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com>
> Cc: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>; James Milko <jmilko () gmail com>;
> nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>
> I understand.  I tend to take a more market by market view of each
> network rather than a global perspective.  Clearly, for the enterprise
> use case with a diversity of users spread across the globe, or even
> nationally, the use case is a bit different.
>
> Having said that, I am rather terribly curious...  I’ve not really seen
> any of the major national non-eyeballs who didn’t have congestion at
> some peering points to major eyeball networks for not insignificant
> periods.
>
> Which transit have you found to be the very best for minimizing those
> concerns in the general case?
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com> wrote:
> >
> > We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed
> with multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we
> wanted to peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the
> only choice for some of our employees.
> > Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has
> been reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if
> VOIP and VPN aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet
> loss makes your access useless, then avoid them if it all possible.
> YMMV.
> > ----
> > Matthew Huff             | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> > Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
> > OTA Management LLC       | Phone: 914-460-4039
> > aim: matthewbhuff        | Fax:   914-694-5669
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mhardeman () ipifony com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM
> > > To: Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com>
> > > Cc: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>; James Milko <jmilko () gmail com>;
> > > nanog () nanog org
> > > Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> > >
> > > I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has
> made
> > > serious strides in improving this.
> > >
> > > In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT&T
> and
> > > Verizon at this point.
> > >
> > > As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that
> > > there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys
> if
> > > they’re part of the market you serve.
> > >
> > > My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs,
> if
> > > they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major
> cable
> > > providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session
> > > directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit
> from
> > > them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no-
> > > export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.)
> > >
> > > The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a
> > > significant impact in many cases.
> > >
> > > > On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
> > > >
> > > > Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant
> > > congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10%
> packet
> > > loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and
> > > Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video,
> with
> > > buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP
> > > and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and
> > > work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely.
> > > > ----
> > > > Matthew Huff             | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> > > > Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
> > > > OTA Management LLC       | Phone: 914-460-4039
> > > > aim: matthewbhuff        | Fax:   914-694-5669
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of William
> > > Herrin
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM
> > > > > To: James Milko <jmilko () gmail com>
> > > > > Cc: nanog () nanog org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmilko () gmail com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
> > > > > > > single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > s/single-homed/dual-homed/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped
> is
> > > > > > acceptable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi James,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent
> > > provider
> > > > > in one's mix.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Bill Herrin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
> > > > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>