mailing list archives
Re: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
From: "Brandon Galbraith" <brandon.galbraith () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:59:23 -0600
On 1/12/09, Jim Shankland <nanog () shankland org> wrote:
Adam Young wrote:
I wouldn't take my word for it but truthfully, you get what you pay for.
Given you have other, more reliable transit, adding Cogent may be ok.
I wouldn't rely on it for anything serious though.
That has not been my experience. Peering wars have been an issue, but
aside from that, they've been fine. (This is transit in San Francisco
at the gigabit-plus level.)
Seconded. We also have Cogent for gigabit transit. I had far more problems
in the short time we used Level3 for transit than I've had with Cogent.
Email: brandon.galbraith () gmail com
Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0] Adam Young (Jan 12)
RE: Cogent Haiku v2.0 Soucy, Ray (Jan 12)
Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0 kris foster (Jan 12)