Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: InterNAP?
From: "David A. Snodgrass" <dave () thedatasource net>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:03:29 -0500

Its good in theory, But last time i looked into them, they still didnt have
very good connectivity to exodus and above etc. so, your traffic ends up
traversing their good cw and uunet links and the like, so to get to places
like exodus and above you are still crossing the PX's - Via other carriers,
not internap :)

But, i would have to say they would be one of my first options if i was
looking to develop a facility with only 1 single-homed link.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Johnson" <mike.johnson () isunnetworks com>
To: "Tom Schmidt" <tsch52 () hotmail com>
Cc: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: InterNAP?

Tom Schmidt [tsch52 () hotmail com] wrote:

InterNap has some technology to avoid congested peering points. Does
technology actually work?  Isn't it impossible to avoid these peering
points?  What are your experiences with InterNAP?

I'm not a customer, but I spoke with a salesdriod there.  All they do
is go in, set up their own geographicly disperse private peering points
and link them together with their private backbone.  They set these
things up by buying service from the other large backbone folk.  The
idea being that, in general, if they can get their traffic onto the same
backbone that the end user is connected to, then it's avoided the
public peering points.  It's a good theory.  Dunno if it works.

Mike Johnson
Network Engineer / iSun Networks, Inc.
Morrisville, NC
All opinions are mine, not those of my employer

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]