Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

The backbone that sucks least?
From: JC Dill <nanog () vo cnchost com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:44:34 -0700

On 10:31 AM 9/18/2001 -0700, dan kelley wrote:

>lost in this whole mess is that their service (DS1) to
>us was reasonably good. unfortunately, their
>organizational sloppiness negates that for us - we'll
>be dropping them as soon as other arrangements are in

Could you elaborate on the "other arrangements" and who you contacted when you went shopping?

We have servers colocated in 8 locations, 4 each with 2 of the big-name colo providers, one of which made news today (no points for accurate guesses). We are looking at adding new server locations in a carrier neutral location like Equinix (who else is doing multiple carrier neutral locations and has available space? who is presently doing this in Europe, in Asia?), and thus need to consider who we want to contract with for our bandwidth. It is essential that the bandwidth provider be a Tier 1 backbone such as UUNET, C&W, Qwest, MCI, Sprint, Verio, L3, AT&T, Genuity (anyone else belong in this class?). Yeah, they all suck one way or the other. But we'd rather not jump out of the frying pan only to land into the fire. Thus...

Of those, who sucks least? Does paying extra for UUNET actually get you anything extra (better customer service, better billing/accounting service, better trouble ticket tracking and reporting)?


  By Date           By Thread  

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