I wouldn't say that I know what's best. We have had many different providers over the last 20 years that I have been here. We never had an issue with any of them until we added Cogent into the mix. Currently we are using a 300MB lighttower and a 300MB LighPath metro Ethernet connection.
From my experience VPN software (both IPSEC and SSLVPN) are very susceptible to high packet loss issues. A few retransmissions/out of order/dropped packets aren't a problem. A sustained drop rate of 5-10% is a major issue. ---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669 > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:32 PM > To: Matthew Huff <[email protected]> > Cc: William Herrin <[email protected]>; James Milko <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > > I understand. I tend to take a more market by market view of each > network rather than a global perspective. Clearly, for the enterprise > use case with a diversity of users spread across the globe, or even > nationally, the use case is a bit different. > > Having said that, I am rather terribly curious... I’ve not really seen > any of the major national non-eyeballs who didn’t have congestion at > some peering points to major eyeball networks for not insignificant > periods. > > Which transit have you found to be the very best for minimizing those > concerns in the general case? > > > > On Mar 14, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Huff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed > with multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we > wanted to peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the > only choice for some of our employees. > > > > Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has > been reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if > VOIP and VPN aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet > loss makes your access useless, then avoid them if it all possible. > YMMV. > > > > ---- > > Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd > > Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 > > OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 > > aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM > >> To: Matthew Huff <[email protected]> > >> Cc: William Herrin <[email protected]>; James Milko <[email protected]>; > >> [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > >> > >> I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has > made > >> serious strides in improving this. > >> > >> In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT&T > and > >> Verizon at this point. > >> > >> As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that > >> there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys > if > >> they’re part of the market you serve. > >> > >> My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, > if > >> they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major > cable > >> providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session > >> directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit > from > >> them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no- > >> export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.) > >> > >> The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a > >> significant impact in many cases. > >> > >>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider. > >>> > >>> Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant > >> congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% > packet > >> loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and > >> Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, > with > >> buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP > >> and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and > >> work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd > >>> Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 > >>> OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 > >>> aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669 > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: NANOG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William > >> Herrin > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM > >>>> To: James Milko <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is > >>>>>> single-homed to Cogent with any protocol. > >>>>> > >>>>> s/single-homed/dual-homed/ > >>>>> > >>>>> It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped > is > >>>>> acceptable. > >>>> > >>>> Hi James, > >>>> > >>>> Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent > >> provider > >>>> in one's mix. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Bill Herrin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > >>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >
