FWIW my experience with AT&T is similar from the network provider side.
We have a POP in Dallas and our HQ is less than 30 miles away, but the only peering between Cogent and AT&T is LA. So when we were splitting traffic between cogent and Zayo the cogent traffic was like 53ms trombones through a congested link in LA and the Zayo traffic was like 7ms. Caused all sorts of terrible out of order issues for our udp products (voip+encrypted tunnel). We actually ended up using communities to drop our announcement to 7018 from 174 Additionally, AS7018 seems very disinterested in helping fix these sorts of issues. Cogent says they’re ready to turn up more settlement-free ports but AT&T is not interested in settlement-free. Their solution is for us as a business to spend thousands of dollars on paid transit from them (AT&T) if we want better reach to 7018. They’re kinda jerks. *Alex Buie*Senior Cloud Operations Engineer 450 Century Pkwy # 100 Allen, TX 75013 <https://maps.google.com/?q=450+Century+Pkwy+STE+100+%7C+Allen,+TX+%7C+75013&entry=gmail&source=g> D: 469-884-0225 | www.cytracom.com On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 8:06 AM Craig Rivenburg <crivenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looking for anyone from AT&T who can help me out. > > I have an external router sitting on an ATT owned /30 subnet in > NYC....seems the only advertisement for this subnet to any of ATT peer is a > /9 aggregate out of Miami. Causing huge latency in our internet path. > Support and account team has not been able to help me. I'm expecting a > more regional aggregate to be advertised so we're not adding 35+ ms to our > path. Maybe that's not reasonable or doable? if that's the case, I'd like > to know why? > > Let me know, and I'll contact you off list and provide more info. Thanks > in advance! > > >
