On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:26 PM, manolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some things just never change at cogent.. fought them for months way > back when to get me off their infamous 2 bgp peer setup after many an > outage due to this setup, they finally put us on a single bgp session > but it took forever. Lets just say cogent didn't last long at the > company I worked for.
Could you provide additional details on the failure mode experienced resultant from this "two tiered" configuration? How did moving to a "conventional" configuration with a single directly-connected neighbor solve things? What steps were taken during your postmortem and subsequent lab simulations to verify that the outages were not with the customer-side implementation, or perhaps a simple typographical error? Here in H-town, we are deploying a metro/BLEC network comprised of 1000s of small L3 boxes not carrying full tables (Cisco 3560 and similar), and would like very much to learn from these major architectural mistakes, so that we can avoid similar outage scenarios. Any information you could provide would be excellent. > You get what you pay for.... Not passing any judgment on quality, Cogent is more towards the middle of the road for price, these days, on larger commits. Paul Wall _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
