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)?
The backbone that sucks least? JC Dill (Sep 25)
Re: The backbone that sucks least? Chris Beggy (Sep 26)
Re: The backbone that sucks least? Nathan J . Mehl (Sep 28)
Re: The backbone that sucks least? Paul Vixie (Sep 29)
Ticketing System (was Re: The backbone that sucks least?) matthew zeier (Sep 29)