[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]

Subject: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
From: nanog at shankland.org (Jim Shankland)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:27:54 -0800
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

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.)

Jim Shankland

Follow-Ups:
- Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
  - From: brandon.galbraith at gmail.com (Brandon Galbraith)

References:
- Cogent Haiku v2.0
  - From: nrauhauser at gmail.com (neal rauhauser)
- Cogent Haiku v2.0
  - From: mob at bartzfamily.net (Mike Bartz)
- Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
  - From: adam.young at mountaincable.on.ca (Adam Young)

Prev by Date: recommendation for SIP integration
Next by Date: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24
Previous by thread: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
Next by thread: Cogent Considerations [was: Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread