In message
, Darius Jahandarie writes:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Robert Bonomi
> wrote:
> >
> > Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC wrote:
> >> > While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the
> >> > do not call list is not o
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Robert Bonomi
wrote:
>
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC wrote:
>> > While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the
>> > do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business
>> > to busin
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC wrote:
> > While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the
> > do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business
> > to business solicitations.
> >
> > "The national Do-Not-Call list protec
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC wrote:
>> While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the
>> do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business
>> to business solicitations.
>>
>> "The nationa
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, PC wrote:
> While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the
> do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business
> to business solicitations.
>
> "The national Do-Not-Call list protects home voice or personal
> wireless pho
While there may be other grounds for telling them not to call you, the
do not call list is not one of them as it does not apply to business
to business solicitations.
"The national Do-Not-Call list protects home voice or personal
wireless phone numbers only. While you may be able to register a
bus
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> I liked Cogent when we had them years ago but due to routing instability
> (off the charts) and unplanned down time every single month we dropped
> them. they call me every 3-6 months (different person each time) and I
> tell them to go aw
Vollebregt [mailto:t...@interworx.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:33 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
+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
Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
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 hel
On 5/14/12, Paul WALL wrote:
> 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.
I'll agree with that; if you have less than 3 upstreams; Cogent sounds risky
for
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 06:49:34PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "A. Pishdadi"
>
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nicolai
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:38:34PM -0500, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
> > > > No way they stack up against level3 or
- Original Message -
> From: "A. Pishdadi"
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nicolai
> wrote:
>
> > 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 wi
Tue, 15 May 2012 16:51:20 -0500
> > Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
> > To: Nicolai
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> >
> > last time i checked .75 x 1000 = 750
>
> 0.75 CENTS (as previously claimed) per meg is 750 CENTS per gig, or
> $7.50/gig.
>
> I suspect you
You're using Verizon Math. ;) (If you don't know what this is, go
Google it!)
"0.75 cents" is not "0.75 dollars"."point 75 cents" == $0.0075.
$0.0075 * 1000 = $7.50
- Peter
On 12-05-15 05:51 PM, A. Pishdadi wrote:
last time i checked .75 x 1000 = 750
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58
last time i checked .75 x 1000 = 750
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nicolai wrote:
> 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
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 prov
As previously mentioned, if you would like better representation in
bgp.he.net, you can provide a feed to RIPE RIS or Routeviews, as this is
where we get our data. If an adjacency is visible here, it is reported.
We do not report false adjacencies. If you have a specific question
about an ad
+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 res
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 wrote:
> Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate. It is a great
> start but even
Message-
From: Paul WALL [mailto:pauldotw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:58 PM
To: Michael J McCafferty
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
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
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 wrote:
> I appreciate the reference t
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. Si
t of issues resulting from the L3/Global Crossing merger as far as
pricing?
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Justin Krejci [mailto:jkre...@usinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:03 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
+1 for cogent, problem free and good res
s just
another possible cause for an outage.
--Original Message--
From: Mark Stevens
To: nanog@nanog.org
ReplyTo: mana...@monmouth.com
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 s
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
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 tr
Original Message-
From: Mark Stevens [mailto:mana...@monmouth.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:22 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
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 r
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 email
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"
> >>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
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 ne
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 the
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 wrote:
> The emails on the
On 5/14/2012 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Baugher"
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
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
- Original Message -
> From: "Jason Baugher"
> 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
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
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 wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I agree with John. You can't use them
& Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw Follow me on Twitter
-Original Message-
From: Jason Baugher
Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:03 PM
To: nanog
Subject: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
>The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this q
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 o
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
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
