Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

Cogent for ISP bandwidth

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jason at thebaughers

May 14, 2012, 3:03 PM

Post #1 of 40 (2032 views)
Permalink
Cogent for ISP bandwidth

The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...

I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area,
is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't
stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive
with pricing to try and get our business.

Thanks,
Jason


john.yocum at fluidhosting

May 14, 2012, 3:12 PM

Post #2 of 40 (2001 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used
them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we
never had packet loss.

--John

On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>
> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
> 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
> For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area,
> is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't
> stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive
> with pricing to try and get our business.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>


lists at mtin

May 14, 2012, 3:33 PM

Post #3 of 40 (2006 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

I have very little issues with Cogent in the Chicago/Indiana/St. Louis
areas. They are peered much better than they were a few years ago.

We have 1 client at Cermack purchasing Cogent bandwidth through a third
party at well under $1 a meg.

Justin


--
Justin Wilson <j2sw [at] mtin>
Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw Follow me on Twitter



-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Baugher <jason [at] thebaughers>
Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:03 PM
To: nanog <nanog [at] nanog>
Subject: Cogent for ISP bandwidth

>The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>
>I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
>3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
>For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area,
>is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't
>stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive
>with pricing to try and get our business.
>
>Thanks,
>Jason
>


mike at m5computersecurity

May 14, 2012, 3:33 PM

Post #4 of 40 (2005 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

Jason,

I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you
wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the
phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access
to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they
really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better
than most and the deliver what they say or better.

In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but
I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout
their network.

We do also use Level3 (and others). As long as they come in to your
facility on different fiber or otherwise meet you physical diversity
requirements, you should be pretty happy. Add low commits to other
providers for more diversity as needed.

Good luck,
Mike

On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 15:12 -0700, John T. Yocum wrote:
> In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used
> them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we
> never had packet loss.
>
> --John
>
> On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> > The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
> >
> > I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
> > 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
> > For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area,
> > is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't
> > stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive
> > with pricing to try and get our business.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jason
> >
>

--
************************************************************
Michael J. McCafferty
CEO
M5 Hosting
http://www.m5hosting.com

Like us on Facebook for updates and photos:
https://www.facebook.com/m5hosting
************************************************************


pauldotwall at gmail

May 14, 2012, 3:58 PM

Post #5 of 40 (2014 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

Cogent is really better suited as a tertiary provider.

Not a bad option, but you don't want to lose redundancy when they get
involved in their peering dispute or de-peering du jour.

Drive Slow,
Paul Wall

On 5/14/12, Michael J McCafferty <mike [at] m5computersecurity> wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you
> wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the
> phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access
> to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they
> really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better
> than most and the deliver what they say or better.
>
> In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but
> I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout
> their network.
>
> We do also use Level3 (and others). As long as they come in to your
> facility on different fiber or otherwise meet you physical diversity
> requirements, you should be pretty happy. Add low commits to other
> providers for more diversity as needed.
>
> Good luck,
> Mike
>
> On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 15:12 -0700, John T. Yocum wrote:
>> In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used
>> them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we
>> never had packet loss.
>>
>> --John
>>
>> On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
>> > The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>> >
>> > I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
>> > 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream
>> > provider.
>> > For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis
>> > area,
>> > is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't
>> > stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive
>> > with pricing to try and get our business.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jason
>> >
>>
>
> --
> ************************************************************
> Michael J. McCafferty
> CEO
> M5 Hosting
> http://www.m5hosting.com
>
> Like us on Facebook for updates and photos:
> https://www.facebook.com/m5hosting
> ************************************************************
>
>
>


alter3d at alter3d

May 14, 2012, 4:00 PM

Post #6 of 40 (2010 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

I use Cogent as one of our upstreams at work, and I'll basically
reiterate what others have said -- overall, I'd have no problems
recommending them. Their routing can sometimes be a little weird
(though this is MUCH better now than it was a couple of years ago), so I
wouldn't necessarily use them as my main provider for latency-sensitive
applications, but this isn't normally a problem with 'general'
traffic. The A peer/B peer stuff they used to do was definitely
weird, but they migrated us away from that configuration a few months
ago (peering with them out of TorIX). Presumably they're doing that
across the rest of their network. Their support has been fantastic in
my experience..

I'd have to say they're probably the least painful provider I've dealt
with overall (unlike some providers *cough*Telus*cough* who I've been
waiting 7 weeks for to set up a freaking BGP session...). I'd have no
problems picking Cogent as a provider, though of course as one of many
providers for redundancy (which would be no different than any other
single provider).

- Pete


On 5/14/2012 6:33 PM, Michael J McCafferty wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you
> wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the
> phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access
> to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they
> really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better
> than most and the deliver what they say or better.
>
> In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but
> I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout
> their network.
>
> We do also use Level3 (and others). As long as they come in to your
> facility on different fiber or otherwise meet you physical diversity
> requirements, you should be pretty happy. Add low commits to other
> providers for more diversity as needed.
>
> Good luck,
> Mike
>
> On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 15:12 -0700, John T. Yocum wrote:
>> In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used
>> them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we
>> never had packet loss.
>>
>> --John
>>
>> On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
>>> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>>>
>>> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
>>> 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
>>> For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area,
>>> is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't
>>> stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive
>>> with pricing to try and get our business.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jason
>>>
Attachments: smime.p7s (4.31 KB)


jra at baylink

May 14, 2012, 5:30 PM

Post #7 of 40 (1999 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Baugher" <jason [at] thebaughers>

> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
> 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.

Really? That surprises me; people complain about Cogent on here, roughly,
weekly. :-)

> For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area,
> is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't
> stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive
> with pricing to try and get our business.

The implication of everyone's "in a BGP mix" responses, in case you don't
get it (and I suspect you might not) is that you don't want Cogent to be
your *only* upstream provider.

If you're going to resell the bandwidth as an ISP, best practice says you
should have at least 2 upstreams. 3 or more is better,

Cogent has had a bad habit the last 5 or 10 years of getting into pissing
matches with other carriers about peering, and just cutting them off
(or being cut off)... which of course means that if they're your only
connection to the Internet, then your customers simply can't reach sites
connected to those providers.

So, in short: no matter how agressive they are, they're not the carrier
to have when you're having only one.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra [at] baylink
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274


jmaimon at ttec

May 14, 2012, 6:33 PM

Post #8 of 40 (1989 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

Michael J McCafferty wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you
> wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the
> phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has access
> to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits that they
> really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their support is better
> than most and the deliver what they say or better.
>
> In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky, but
> I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware throughout
> their network.


I like the separate peers. Its a nice concept in theory and gives you
the flexibility to easily integrate it into an RR setup.

I wouldnt mind more providers offering it as an option without having to
be educated as to how it works.

Joe


jason at thebaughers

May 14, 2012, 7:27 PM

Post #9 of 40 (2011 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

On 5/14/2012 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jason Baugher"<jason [at] thebaughers>
>> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
>> 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
> Really? That surprises me; people complain about Cogent on here, roughly,
> weekly. :-)
Sorry, been on this list for quite some time, and I even went back to
the archives. I don't see much there that is specific to Cogent doing a
bad job. If I go back a few years, I find stuff about Cogent-Telia,
Cogent-GBX, and even Cogent-HE IPv6 peering.
>> For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area,
>> is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't
>> stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive
>> with pricing to try and get our business.
> The implication of everyone's "in a BGP mix" responses, in case you don't
> get it (and I suspect you might not) is that you don't want Cogent to be
> your *only* upstream provider.
>
> If you're going to resell the bandwidth as an ISP, best practice says you
> should have at least 2 upstreams. 3 or more is better,
This would be a 3rd or possibly a 4th upstream.
> Cogent has had a bad habit the last 5 or 10 years of getting into pissing
> matches with other carriers about peering, and just cutting them off
> (or being cut off)... which of course means that if they're your only
> connection to the Internet, then your customers simply can't reach sites
> connected to those providers.
>
> So, in short: no matter how agressive they are, they're not the carrier
> to have when you're having only one.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra


apishdadi at gmail

May 14, 2012, 7:38 PM

Post #10 of 40 (1980 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig

Thanks,
Ameen Pishdadi


On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher <jason [at] thebaughers> wrote:

> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>
> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>


faisal at snappydsl

May 14, 2012, 8:49 PM

Post #11 of 40 (2036 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

I often tell folks, Cogent is the 'Heidi Fleiss' of the industry ......
pretty much everyone of the major carriers / providers deal with them..
but no one wants to admit it.

I don't think there is any carrier out there that could be considered
'Premium' in terms of quality of service (yeah their are a lot of folks
who are Premium based on what they charge)...

One can only hedge one's bet for a quality connection by having multiple
providers (you can mix and match) or go with some one like Internap or
Tinet (folks who are taking traffic across multiple providers at their POP).

Of course your mileage may vary.... as long as you have alternate
connectivity, it makes dealing with issues more palatable, whether it is
Cogent or Level3...

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet& Telecom


On 5/14/2012 10:38 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
> No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
>
> Thanks,
> Ameen Pishdadi
>
>
> On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher<jason [at] thebaughers> wrote:
>
>> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>>
>> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>>
>


apishdadi at gmail

May 14, 2012, 9:32 PM

Post #12 of 40 (1997 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

Has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with all the major carriers , they are a budget provider , always have , always will be. Aside from that what matters the most is eye ball user connectivity and level3 , AT&T, Verizon significantly have more eye balls connected directly to there network then cogent , we have cogent and level3 and 5 other providers on our Chicago network , with out any traffic engineering almost every thing will come in or go out level3, we use traffic optimizing equipment to automate our commit levels and also do performance based routing adjustments , I literally have to put a gun to its head to get a descent amount of traffic out to cogent , you may say it's a matter of opinion but statistics don't lie, even Telia out performs cogent according to stats , not just cause they have a massive eye ball network in Europe.

Ask yourself , who are the majority customers of cogent? Not end user ISPs , hosting companies aka content providers, and when there selling bandwidth cheaper then it costs to peer then there going to keep there costs to the minimum ... Cheaper is cheaper , the saying is true , you get what you pay for.

A Kia and Ferrari can both get me from point a to point b, but the Ferrari is capable of getting me there way quicker, and yes I'm going to pay a premium for it but if I'm going from NYC to San Fran I'd definitely feel safer in the Ferrari reliability wise and get there a hell of a lot quicker...


But like I said and the other 10 replies nothing wrong with cogent in a nice blend of 3 or more other providers ...


Thanks,
Ameen Pishdadi


On May 14, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal [at] snappydsl> wrote:

> I often tell folks, Cogent is the 'Heidi Fleiss' of the industry ...... pretty much everyone of the major carriers / providers deal with them.. but no one wants to admit it.
>
> I don't think there is any carrier out there that could be considered 'Premium' in terms of quality of service (yeah their are a lot of folks who are Premium based on what they charge)...
>
> One can only hedge one's bet for a quality connection by having multiple providers (you can mix and match) or go with some one like Internap or Tinet (folks who are taking traffic across multiple providers at their POP).
>
> Of course your mileage may vary.... as long as you have alternate connectivity, it makes dealing with issues more palatable, whether it is Cogent or Level3...
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet& Telecom
>
>
> On 5/14/2012 10:38 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
>> No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ameen Pishdadi
>>
>>
>> On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher<jason [at] thebaughers> wrote:
>>
>>> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>>>
>>> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>
>


mpalmer at hezmatt

May 14, 2012, 9:39 PM

Post #13 of 40 (1994 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:27:57PM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote:
> On 5/14/2012 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Jason Baugher"<jason [at] thebaughers>
> >>I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last
> >>3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider.
> >Really? That surprises me; people complain about Cogent on here, roughly,
> >weekly. :-)
>
> Sorry, been on this list for quite some time, and I even went back
> to the archives. I don't see much there that is specific to Cogent
> doing a bad job. If I go back a few years, I find stuff about
> Cogent-Telia, Cogent-GBX, and even Cogent-HE IPv6 peering.

So when you play "What's the common factor?", you get... ? <grin>

We decided not to use Cogent as one of the suppliers for a recent PoP
deployment because of these sorts of games -- it's not that we'd get caught
in them (we've got three providers), but we just don't want to reward that
sort of behaviour with our money.

- Matt


manager at monmouth

May 15, 2012, 5:21 AM

Post #14 of 40 (1974 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

We use Cogent as one our upstreams and have had nothing but stability
and excellent support over the years. But as other said, you really need
multiple upstreams and cannot rely just on one whether it is Cogent or
any other provider.


Mark

On 5/14/2012 6:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>
> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the
> last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream
> provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St.
> Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that
> they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being
> very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
>
>


frnkblk at iname

May 15, 2012, 5:27 AM

Post #15 of 40 (1983 views)
Permalink
RE: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

I'm surprised the IPv6 component hasn't been brought up, yet -- Cogent's
IPv6 prefix coverage is smaller than most. So having even two providers is
insufficient -- you really need at least three, so that if any one of the
three goes down you're not IPv6-isolated.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stevens [mailto:manager [at] monmouth]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:22 AM
To: nanog [at] nanog
Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth

We use Cogent as one our upstreams and have had nothing but stability
and excellent support over the years. But as other said, you really need
multiple upstreams and cannot rely just on one whether it is Cogent or
any other provider.


Mark

On 5/14/2012 6:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>
> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the
> last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream
> provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St.
> Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that
> they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being
> very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
>
>


faisal at snappydsl

May 15, 2012, 6:00 AM

Post #16 of 40 (1991 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

Let me say it differently.

Take a look at thier AS174 peering relationship, (e.g using
bgp.he.net), you can see that they (Cogent) are very well connected
(directly) with all of the major networks. (this is what I meant by,
they deal with all of the major carriers).

Your experience with traffic is very different from what we have seen,
while I can understand that, it can be due to many factors.

Based on AS Peering relationships, it would appear that Major / Most of
the end user ISP's have them in their mix. I my opinion the Hosting
providers use Cogent as a way to off load incoming traffic from the
more expensive carriers. Cogent performance is very decent if the
traffic is all on-net ... they typically have issues when traffic is
crossing their network, i.e. coming in and going out via their peers to
other networks.

While the Kia and Ferrari example is cute, but when put into the context
of 'Traffic' or 'Speed limit', then neither has the advantage. One might
look good driving in a Ferrari.. but I digress.... packets are agnostic
of what brand of router they are traveling thru or whose network they
are transiting.

We are in agreement, that Cogent makes a good backup secondary or
tertiary in a mix of Ip transit. However having said that it is valuable
to check the bgp peering relationships of the different providers that
you have, to make sure that you are choosing providers based on actual
diversity rather than a perceived one.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet& Telecom


On 5/15/2012 12:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
> Has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with all the major carriers , they are a budget provider , always have , always will be. Aside from that what matters the most is eye ball user connectivity and level3 , AT&T, Verizon significantly have more eye balls connected directly to there network then cogent , we have cogent and level3 and 5 other providers on our Chicago network , with out any traffic engineering almost every thing will come in or go out level3, we use traffic optimizing equipment to automate our commit levels and also do performance based routing adjustments , I literally have to put a gun to its head to get a descent amount of traffic out to cogent , you may say it's a matter of opinion but statistics don't lie, even Telia out performs cogent according to stats , not just cause they have a massive eye ball network in Europe.
>
> Ask yourself , who are the majority customers of cogent? Not end user ISPs , hosting companies aka content providers, and when there selling bandwidth cheaper then it costs to peer then there going to keep there costs to the minimum ... Cheaper is cheaper , the saying is true , you get what you pay for.
>
> A Kia and Ferrari can both get me from point a to point b, but the Ferrari is capable of getting me there way quicker, and yes I'm going to pay a premium for it but if I'm going from NYC to San Fran I'd definitely feel safer in the Ferrari reliability wise and get there a hell of a lot quicker...
>
>
> But like I said and the other 10 replies nothing wrong with cogent in a nice blend of 3 or more other providers ...
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ameen Pishdadi
>
>
> On May 14, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz<faisal [at] snappydsl> wrote:
>
>> I often tell folks, Cogent is the 'Heidi Fleiss' of the industry ...... pretty much everyone of the major carriers / providers deal with them.. but no one wants to admit it.
>>
>> I don't think there is any carrier out there that could be considered 'Premium' in terms of quality of service (yeah their are a lot of folks who are Premium based on what they charge)...
>>
>> One can only hedge one's bet for a quality connection by having multiple providers (you can mix and match) or go with some one like Internap or Tinet (folks who are taking traffic across multiple providers at their POP).
>>
>> Of course your mileage may vary.... as long as you have alternate connectivity, it makes dealing with issues more palatable, whether it is Cogent or Level3...
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet& Telecom
>>
>>
>> On 5/14/2012 10:38 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
>>> No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ameen Pishdadi
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher<jason [at] thebaughers> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>>>>
>>>> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>


jason at thebaughers

May 15, 2012, 6:39 AM

Post #17 of 40 (1986 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before.

We've worked with Sprint for years, and they have always been excellent
for reliability and support. We recently picked up Level3, and so far
they have been very good as well. It's a small thing, maybe, but I like
that both Sprint and Level3 have nice online tools for change requests,
trouble tickets, etc... We've been a Lightcore/CenturyLink customer for
years as well, also very reliable. They don't have the slick online
tools, but I can usually get a live person in their NOC.

Cogent is being very aggressive with their pricing, and if it weren't
for the fact that we are geographically challenged and have to pay for
transport to get to them, we might have already taken them up on it.

Thanks for all the input from everyone.

Jason


5/15/2012 8:00 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> Let me say it differently.
>
> Take a look at thier AS174 peering relationship, (e.g using
> bgp.he.net), you can see that they (Cogent) are very well connected
> (directly) with all of the major networks. (this is what I meant by,
> they deal with all of the major carriers).
>
> Your experience with traffic is very different from what we have seen,
> while I can understand that, it can be due to many factors.
>
> Based on AS Peering relationships, it would appear that Major / Most
> of the end user ISP's have them in their mix. I my opinion the Hosting
> providers use Cogent as a way to off load incoming traffic from the
> more expensive carriers. Cogent performance is very decent if the
> traffic is all on-net ... they typically have issues when traffic is
> crossing their network, i.e. coming in and going out via their peers
> to other networks.
>
> While the Kia and Ferrari example is cute, but when put into the
> context of 'Traffic' or 'Speed limit', then neither has the advantage.
> One might look good driving in a Ferrari.. but I digress.... packets
> are agnostic of what brand of router they are traveling thru or whose
> network they are transiting.
>
> We are in agreement, that Cogent makes a good backup secondary or
> tertiary in a mix of Ip transit. However having said that it is
> valuable to check the bgp peering relationships of the different
> providers that you have, to make sure that you are choosing providers
> based on actual diversity rather than a perceived one.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet& Telecom
>
>
> On 5/15/2012 12:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
>> Has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with all the major
>> carriers , they are a budget provider , always have , always will be.
>> Aside from that what matters the most is eye ball user connectivity
>> and level3 , AT&T, Verizon significantly have more eye balls
>> connected directly to there network then cogent , we have cogent and
>> level3 and 5 other providers on our Chicago network , with out any
>> traffic engineering almost every thing will come in or go out level3,
>> we use traffic optimizing equipment to automate our commit levels and
>> also do performance based routing adjustments , I literally have to
>> put a gun to its head to get a descent amount of traffic out to
>> cogent , you may say it's a matter of opinion but statistics don't
>> lie, even Telia out performs cogent according to stats , not just
>> cause they have a massive eye ball network in Europe.
>>
>> Ask yourself , who are the majority customers of cogent? Not end user
>> ISPs , hosting companies aka content providers, and when there
>> selling bandwidth cheaper then it costs to peer then there going to
>> keep there costs to the minimum ... Cheaper is cheaper , the saying
>> is true , you get what you pay for.
>>
>> A Kia and Ferrari can both get me from point a to point b, but the
>> Ferrari is capable of getting me there way quicker, and yes I'm going
>> to pay a premium for it but if I'm going from NYC to San Fran I'd
>> definitely feel safer in the Ferrari reliability wise and get there a
>> hell of a lot quicker...
>>
>>
>> But like I said and the other 10 replies nothing wrong with cogent in
>> a nice blend of 3 or more other providers ...
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ameen Pishdadi
>>
>>
>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz<faisal [at] snappydsl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I often tell folks, Cogent is the 'Heidi Fleiss' of the industry
>>> ...... pretty much everyone of the major carriers / providers deal
>>> with them.. but no one wants to admit it.
>>>
>>> I don't think there is any carrier out there that could be
>>> considered 'Premium' in terms of quality of service (yeah their are
>>> a lot of folks who are Premium based on what they charge)...
>>>
>>> One can only hedge one's bet for a quality connection by having
>>> multiple providers (you can mix and match) or go with some one like
>>> Internap or Tinet (folks who are taking traffic across multiple
>>> providers at their POP).
>>>
>>> Of course your mileage may vary.... as long as you have alternate
>>> connectivity, it makes dealing with issues more palatable, whether
>>> it is Cogent or Level3...
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet& Telecom
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/14/2012 10:38 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
>>>> No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier
>>>> 1s but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be
>>>> any issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ameen Pishdadi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Jason Baugher<jason [at] thebaughers>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the
>>>>> last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an
>>>>> upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in
>>>>> the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our
>>>>> gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or
>>>>> Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and
>>>>> get our business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>


jkrejci at usinternet

May 15, 2012, 7:03 AM

Post #18 of 40 (1972 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

+1 for cogent, problem free and good responsive support.

Not sure why "don't use only 1 upstream if you care about accessibility" has anything to do with cogent specifically. Are peering/de-peering disputes more likely to occur than all other network/routing issues combined? its just another possible cause for an outage.



------Original Message------
From: Mark Stevens
To: nanog [at] nanog
ReplyTo: manager [at] monmouth
Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
Sent: May 15, 2012 7:21 AM

We use Cogent as one our upstreams and have had nothing but stability
and excellent support over the years. But as other said, you really need
multiple upstreams and cannot rely just on one whether it is Cogent or
any other provider.


Mark

On 5/14/2012 6:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>
> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the
> last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream
> provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St.
> Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that
> they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being
> very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
>
>


drew.weaver at thenap

May 15, 2012, 7:16 AM

Post #19 of 40 (1965 views)
Permalink
RE: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

I'm most likely wrong, but doesn't Cogent basically just a lease dark fiber/wavelengths from Level3's for the majority of their POP connectivity?

I know they have purchased some assets in the past but I'm under the impression they're highly levered to L3.

Wont they eventually run into a squeeze (possibly man made and intentional) which will force their pricing to go up?

Although, I suppose folks have been saying that the pricing isn't sustainable since Cogent began.

This is likely off-topic for this particular thread but has anyone seen any evidence yet of issues resulting from the L3/Global Crossing merger as far as pricing?

-Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Krejci [mailto:jkrejci [at] usinternet]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:03 AM
To: nanog [at] nanog
Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth

+1 for cogent, problem free and good responsive support.

Not sure why "don't use only 1 upstream if you care about accessibility" has anything to do with cogent specifically. Are peering/de-peering disputes more likely to occur than all other network/routing issues combined? its just another possible cause for an outage.



------Original Message------
From: Mark Stevens
To: nanog [at] nanog
ReplyTo: manager [at] monmouth
Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
Sent: May 15, 2012 7:21 AM

We use Cogent as one our upstreams and have had nothing but stability and excellent support over the years. But as other said, you really need multiple upstreams and cannot rely just on one whether it is Cogent or any other provider.


Mark

On 5/14/2012 6:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>
> I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the
> last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream
> provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St.
> Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that
> they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being
> very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
>
>


nicolai-nanog at chocolatine

May 15, 2012, 7:58 AM

Post #20 of 40 (1957 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:38:34PM -0500, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
> No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s
> but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any
> issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig

That's $7.50 per 1000mbps. Sign me up!

Nicolai


ren.provo at gmail

May 15, 2012, 8:32 AM

Post #21 of 40 (1961 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great
start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies
missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even
exists.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher <jason [at] thebaughers> wrote:
> I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before.


scott at sberkman

May 15, 2012, 9:17 AM

Post #22 of 40 (1978 views)
Permalink
RE: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

+1 here. Some would say if you are of a certain size, you almost NEED to
have a Cogent connection amongst others for when they have their spats.

If you are missing the history here, check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogent_Communications#Peering

-Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul WALL [mailto:pauldotwall [at] gmail]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:58 PM
To: Michael J McCafferty
Cc: nanog [at] nanog
Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth

Cogent is really better suited as a tertiary provider.

Not a bad option, but you don't want to lose redundancy when they get
involved in their peering dispute or de-peering du jour.

Drive Slow,
Paul Wall

On 5/14/12, Michael J McCafferty <mike [at] m5computersecurity> wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I agree with John. You can't use them as your only provider, but you
> wouldn't do that with *any* provider. I will add that they answer the
> phone quickly, and the person who answers usually has a clue, has
> access to the routers, and can be helpful. It's one of the benefits
> that they really only sell one product. Honestly, I think their
> support is better than most and the deliver what they say or better.
>
> In the past the had a A peer / B peer setup that was a little funky,
> but I think they are getting rid of that as they upgrade hardware
> throughout their network.
>
> We do also use Level3 (and others). As long as they come in to your
> facility on different fiber or otherwise meet you physical diversity
> requirements, you should be pretty happy. Add low commits to other
> providers for more diversity as needed.
>
> Good luck,
> Mike
>
> On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 15:12 -0700, John T. Yocum wrote:
>> In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used
>> them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but
>> we never had packet loss.
>>
>> --John
>>
>> On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
>> > The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question...
>> >
>> > I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the
>> > last
>> > 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream
>> > provider.
>> > For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis
>> > area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they
>> > don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very
>> > aggressive with pricing to try and get our business.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jason
>> >
>>
>
> --
> ************************************************************
> Michael J. McCafferty
> CEO
> M5 Hosting
> http://www.m5hosting.com
>
> Like us on Facebook for updates and photos:
> https://www.facebook.com/m5hosting
> ************************************************************
>
>
>


me at anuragbhatia

May 15, 2012, 9:36 AM

Post #23 of 40 (1952 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

The only issue I saw with bgp.he.net is that it updates after 24hrs which
makes it hard to use for any recently made changes. But for rest works
pretty good.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Ren Provo <ren.provo [at] gmail> wrote:

> Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great
> start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies
> missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even
> exists.
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher <jason [at] thebaughers>
> wrote:
> > I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool
> before.
>
>


--

Anurag Bhatia
anuragbhatia.com
or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected
network!

Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> |
Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>|
Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>


tim at interworx

May 15, 2012, 11:33 AM

Post #24 of 40 (1958 views)
Permalink
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

+1 for Cogent in the mix :)

People with a clue in their NOC, near zero routing issues in last 1,5 years.

On May 15, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:

> The only issue I saw with bgp.he.net is that it updates after 24hrs which
> makes it hard to use for any recently made changes. But for rest works
> pretty good.
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Ren Provo <ren.provo [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great
>> start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies
>> missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even
>> exists.
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher <jason [at] thebaughers>
>> wrote:
>>> I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool
>> before.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Anurag Bhatia
> anuragbhatia.com
> or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected
> network!
>
> Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> |
> Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>|
> Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>


jvanoppen at spectrumnet

May 15, 2012, 2:47 PM

Post #25 of 40 (1939 views)
Permalink
RE: Cogent for ISP bandwidth [In reply to]

We have cogent in the mix, and I do have to say one gets what one pays for... They are a no redundancy, no extra capacity kind of shop... This often is noticeable when they have fiber cuts or equipment failures, it also results in a lot more service affecting maintenance than our other providers.

That being said, we have several 10Gs to them as one of our five upstreams, we mostly use them for on-net traffic and a couple of selected peers where they seem not to have congestion issues. My biggest bone to pick with them though is their incredibly crappy BGP community offering. They have no selective (ie per peer) announcement control options which severely limits our ability to use them more since we end up sending their "perpend to [all] peers" community instead of just prepending to the peers we don't like the return routes on.

Thanks,
John @ AS11404

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.