Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread)

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> > > Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> > > > Mike,
> > > > Aside from the occasional peering wars i've never had or  
> > > > witnessed any
> > > > serious issues with Cogent. If you want some redundancy you might  
> > > > also
> > > > try some other similarly priced providers like WBS Connect, HE, or
> > > > BtN.
> > >
> > > (resend due to subject filter)
> > >
> > > Plus if you had direct connectivity to Cogent, their peering  
> > > status with
> > > others wouldn't affect you anymore. Personally, I've seriously
> > > considered this as a reason to get a connection from Cogent.
> >
> > If you are not single-homed, you have no issues reaching Cogent even
> > during a "peering war" - unless Cogent depeers / gets depeered from
> > -both- (all) of your upstreams at the same time.  So what value is  
> > there
> > to add Cogent?
>
> The value is, that Cogent pretty much is the cheapest transit you can
> get out there vs. paying a premium for carriers that have less clue  
> and
> more outages.

Sorry for being imprecise.  I meant that adding Cogent does not  
significantly improve your reachability.  Choosing to buy from Cogent  
because they depeer / get depeered occasionally is silly, IMHO.

To be clear, I am making no comment on Cogent's overall performance.   
If you find value in adding a provider for other reasons (cost,  
performance, etc.), I would not argue against it.

--
TTFN,
patrick