I'm interested to purchase ServerCentral bandwidth from Equinix VA or Chicago. I have done some researches and their bandwidth seems to be considered as premium quality and they claim to have 100% uptime history. I also like their list of transits (UUNet, Level3, Global Crossing, BTN, Telia, nLayer, and a few others).

I have some questions though:
- is their network truly multi-homed and redundant? will it choose the best/fastest path, not the cheapest path? do they play up with their routes often?
- how's their network speed from Europe? All traceroutes from Europe seems to be always going thru Telia, and never go thru BTN (which also has good route to Europe).
- can they be used to host mission critical sites that require true 100% uptime SLA?
- how often do they perform scheduled maintenances? does their maintenance cause the network to be totally or partially unavailable?
- which one is better to get ServerCentral bandwidth from between Equinix Ashburn/VA and Chicago?
- is it better (and cheaper) to get SC bandwidth from them directly or thru one of their resellers?
- is there any difference in the quality between getting their bandwidth from them and their reseller?
- what's the lowest SC bandwidth price now (for 100Mbps commitment or more)? the best price I get so far is $25 per Mbps.

Thanks for the feedback and have a nice weekend guys! :)

Originally posted by blueface
- is their network truly multi-homed and redundant?
Yes
- can they be used to host mission critical sites that require true 100% uptime SLA?
My experiences with Server Central have been superb.
- how often do they perform scheduled maintenances? does their maintenance cause the network to be totally or partially unavailable?
Being a bgp speaking customer with multiple circuits to SC, I have not been substantially impacted by network maintenance in my memory. We are multi-homed ourselves, though; so who knows if I would notice. ;)
- is there any difference in the quality between getting their bandwidth from them and their reseller?
Server Central's support is excellent, and they know what they are doing. That is absolutely not true of many of their customers. Don't buy from someone just because they use SC and expect it to be a good experience. You may be happy, or you may get burned.

Thanks Jeff!

Do you connect from their Ashburn or Chicago POP?

I plan to use their bandwidth exclusively, not multi-homed with other providers, so I'm very concerned whether their so called BGP multi-homed network is truly reliable and can maintain uptime, even thru scheduled maintenance and DDoS attacks.

I am a customer in Chicago. The network is definately not "so called," having seen it perform up to my expectations since the first day we connected to them; and having seen their infrastructure with my own eyes; I can assure you that they are not making anything up. ;)

I have a monitoring server in their Chicago facility. In the 3 months approximately it's been there, I've had zero downtime so far.

Bandwidth is solid, and truly multihomed.

No doubts servercentral provides one of the best bandwidth around.

Originally posted by UltraUnixNET
No doubts servercentral provides one of the best bandwidth around.

I have to disagree. Level3, MCI, Savvis, InterNAP are all better.

We have used Servercentral.net for more than a year. And there is only one scheduled maintanence during this period.

Thanks for all the feedback!

pang, was the network down durin that scheduled maintenance? how long that the maintenance lasted? I plan to host mission critical sites that need 100% uptime there and I'm wondering if I can rely solely on ServerCentral multi-homed network for that purpose. I assume by going with SC will save us a great deal of money than doing our own BGP. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There are still some unanswered questions though:
- how's their network speed from Europe? All traceroutes from Europe seems to be always going thru Telia, and never go thru BTN (which also has good route to Europe).
- which one is better to get ServerCentral bandwidth from between Equinix Ashburn/VA and Chicago?
- is it better (and cheaper) to get SC bandwidth from them directly or thru one of their resellers?
- is there any difference in the quality between getting their bandwidth from them and their reseller?
- what's the lowest SC bandwidth price now (for 100Mbps commitment or more)? the best price I get so far is $25 per Mbps.

Hello,
It depends on what your looking for. But, keep in mind that ServerCentral isn't the only provider. You could always go with someone like InterNAP, MCI, Savvis or a more redundant network.

SC has a good network but, I would recommend taking a look at all your options and not just picking ServerCentral unless your 100% sure you want go with them.

Thanks for the tips BitoMagic!
Yes, I have looked at all the options and ServerCentral is at the top of my favorite list :)

InterNAP is too expensive and may not be cost effective for me now. Do you think going with a Tier-1 provider like MCI, Savvis or Level3 is better and more redundant than going with a Tier-2 provider like ServerCentral?

I know these Tier-1 providers run global network world-wide which have vast amount peerings, but I'm not sure if that means they're more redundant and reliable than SC. I believe SC maintains their own BGP multi-homed network to these Tier-1 providers and optimize the routes, so if a transit provider goes down, their network will not take that route.

Originally posted by blueface
Thanks for the tips BitoMagic!
Yes, I have looked at all the options and ServerCentral is at the top of my favorite list :)

InterNAP is too expensive and may not be cost effective for me now. Do you think going with a Tier-1 provider like MCI, Savvis or Level3 is better and more redundant than going with a Tier-2 provider like ServerCentral?

I know these Tier-1 providers run global network world-wide which have vast amount peerings, but I'm not sure if that means they're more redundant and reliable than SC. I believe SC maintains their own BGP multi-homed network to these Tier-1 providers and optimize the routes, so if a transit provider goes down, their network will not take that route.


SC has a well maintained network. But, there is more providers in Chicago. Such as Steadfast which also has a very good network and they are of course Level3 and Savvis. But, definately a good network.

Originally posted by blueface
pang, was the network down durin that scheduled maintenance? how long that the maintenance lasted?
[/i]
The maintenance is less than 5 minutes. (since our external uptime monitor, websitepluse, does not report any downtime)

If you are interested in Europe route, you can visit www.traceroute.org

I have had equipment colocated with servercentral (Chicago) for the last 26 months, there have been 2 outages for a combined total of less than 2 hours in that time. I believe both times were attributed to aggregation switches/etc and I doubt that higher commit customers plugged into their core routers have experienced any downtime. Their support is very quick to respond. The resellers who have been discussed in the forums have not been very impressive. You may pay more from them directly but you get what you pay for.

Originally posted by pang
The maintenance is less than 5 minutes. (since our external uptime monitor, websitepluse, does not report any downtime)
websitepulse is crap, incidentally. I mean, there's nothing wrong with it not noticing a 5 minute maintenance outage; but when last I looked at websitepulse, their polling/monitoring boxes were not in intelligent places from an Internet topology perspective; and as a result, they often generate data that is flat out useless. They do not have an algorithm to iron out those problems, so they end up feeding you bad information in many instances.

While it's cool that they can email you if they think your sites go down (IIRC), I would never try to to go an ISP / hosting shop with an educated engineering staff based on data from websitepulse and expect them to believe the data; or try to use that organization's data to enforce an SLA.

Originally posted by BitOMagic
I have to disagree. Level3, MCI, Savvis, InterNAP are all better.

Not to take this off topic...but with 3 out of the 4, you are comparing apples to oranges. Have you been a customer of MCI, Level3, Savvis, InterNAP and SCnet?

The support issues alone dealing with the "big guys" makes it worth going to someone like ServerCentral.

Yes, We have worked with Level3, Savvis, and InterNAP. They're all excellent to deal with.

Originally posted by bompton
I have had equipment colocated with servercentral (Chicago) for the last 26 months, there have been 2 outages for a combined total of less than 2 hours in that time. I believe both times were attributed to aggregation switches/etc and I doubt that higher commit customers plugged into their core routers have experienced any downtime. Their support is very quick to respond. The resellers who have been discussed in the forums have not been very impressive. You may pay more from them directly but you get what you pay for.

Thanks bompton, that's a very valuable info for me!
So I should ask them to plug me into one of their core routers instead?

Which resellers that you're talking about? I've got some nice quotes for SC bandwidth from some of their resellers and they have been very helpful and run serious business with SC bandwidth. However, I don't know if they will just plug my servers to one of their switches or directly into SC core routers.

I've also looked at Steadfast Network but their rate is still a bit more expensive than what I get for SC bandwidth. I like Steadfast solid mix of bandwidth though (Savvis, Level3, BTN, and AboveNet).

Originally posted by blueface
So I should ask them to plug me into one of their core routers instead?
What is your traffic commitment? My guess is you are too small for that to be an option; though you would be better off with redundant ethernet connections, anyway. Since we are a BGP speaker, I have never asked SC for something like that, but my guess is they can accomodate your concerns about the possibility of an aggregation switch outage.

Which resellers that you're talking about? I've got some nice quotes for SC bandwidth from some of their resellers and they have been very helpful and run serious business with SC bandwidth. However, I don't know if they will just plug my servers to one of their switches or directly into SC core routers.
I suppose we are talking about different types of "resellers." There are a lot of folks who single-home to SC but operate their own networks; or use a lot of SC bandwidth but have other transit. These people may or may not have the necessary equipment, experience, and budget to do the job right.

Agent-like resellers, on the other hand, are just cashing your check and then writing one to SC, I would expect. That should be safe with any company as long as the bills get paid and you don't have to go to the agent for support.

I've also looked at Steadfast Network but their rate is still a bit more expensive than what I get for SC bandwidth.
If you want 100% uptime, you are going to pay for it. Time after time, WHT posters buy something that looks like a good bargain, get burned, and come back to the board to complain about it. You get what you pay for.

That said, yes, there are numerous options in Chicago. Server Central is excellent, as are a few other folks.

Thanks for the thoughts Jeff! I agree with you completely and am still looking for more feedback about those who have been using SC bandwidth. So far, everything I heard about it has been excellent.

Originally posted by BitOMagic
I have to disagree. Level3, MCI, Savvis, InterNAP are all better.

Level3, MCI, and Savvis are backbone providers, a single connection to any one of them will not give you a multi-homed solution and you will be susceptible to their network outages, corporate BS support, and corporate BS provisioning.

InterNap - is a different solution altogether. They have both good and bad aspects to their structure/pricing/etc... They work well for some customers and not as well for others.

Buying from a place like Servercentral is like buying from a blend of all of the above. You can get the diversity with a BGP multi-homed solution at a lower cost than you would be able to get from buying direct, especially from a single provider like those you have mentioned.

Yes, buba69 that's what I thought as well. Just like the recent Level3 network outage, going with single connection to them is not a good idea for 100% redundancy.

So do you also agree that going with ServerCentral is better and more cost-effective?

I would still look at Steadfast or any other provider in Chicago other then Server Central.

Originally posted by BitOMagic
I would still look at Steadfast or any other provider in Chicago other then Server Central.

Hey mesonix, what is it that you do? Your website has no info.

Hello,
I am unable to answer that question as we aren't allowed to advertise our services. Sorry!

Originally posted by BitOMagic
Hello,
I am unable to answer that question as we aren't allowed to advertise our services. Sorry!

yet I could call the number on your website and find out what you do?

Regardless, doesn't exactly instill a sense of believability/trust in your opinions.

http://www.php-mysql-perl.com/scripts/s9289-mesonix_communications.html

Mesonix Communications Mesonix Communications offers Managed Colocation in the New York City area in our privately owned and operated data center. We own and operate a BGP 4 network that is connected to some of the top available carriers.

and

http://forums.mesonix.com/

Google is your friend :cool:

Originally posted by BitOMagic
Hello,
I am unable to answer that question as we aren't allowed to advertise our services. Sorry!

hmmm...perhaps he is referring to the self-promo rule? If that is the case, it wouldn't really apply here. If someone asks you want you do in relation to a post, that is not considered self promo.

However if you are simply referring to some kind of weird internal policy, then that is a different story...

Originally posted by BitOMagic
I would still look at Steadfast or any other provider in Chicago other then Server Central.

What is it you don't like about SC? Price? Support? Performance? .... ?

Originally posted by BigGorilla
What is it you don't like about SC? Price? Support? Performance? .... ?

I have had several customers move to me recently because of poor support from Server Central. I would think that is proof they are having some support issues, especially considering their pricing in most cases. Also, I've been seeing their network using a lot of lower end providers lately such as TeleGlobe and BtN. Still, with the number of providers they have, etc. they still run a quality network.

Teleglobe hasn't been in SC's mix for quite awhile and when they did it was a test circuit. Simple traceroutes show alot of nice quality bandwidth providers such as UUNet and L3. I'm sure your support is better Karl since you only have one M20 on your network. I mean two routers is hard work and then you would have support issues. Your customers would find themselves back at FDC asking questions like "WHERE IS THE CORE."

I won't self promote as I don't like selling colo in CHI.

BTN is a low end provider? Jordan buys from Teleglobe? Jordan lost two customers because of poor support?


I will answer in reverse order.

1. SCN fired those customers. SCN is the only outfit in CHI with 24/7 onsite so I have flipped custs to SCN and they love the stuff.
2. Jordan doesn't buy from Teleglobe. There was a test circuit that went away eons ago.
3. BTN is low end? Oh Karl :) We do around 35Gbps, have pops on 5 continents, have more peers than some people have IP addys allocated to them.

Nothing against Karl, he's always been good to me but karma plays a huge role in this ever contracting game we play...

More importantly: Go Red Sox!

Blah.

Chris

Originally posted by KarlZimmer
I have had several customers move to me recently because of poor support from Server Central. I would think that is proof they are having some support issues, especially considering their pricing in most cases. Also, I've been seeing their network using a lot of lower end providers lately such as TeleGlobe and BtN. Still, with the number of providers they have, etc. they still run a quality network.

I would be curious to know when BTN became a "lower end provider" also. 

Originally posted by ardent
1. SCN fired those customers. SCN is the only outfit in CHI with 24/7 onsite so I have flipped custs to SCN and they love the stuff.
2. Jordan doesn't buy from Teleglobe. There was a test circuit that went away eons ago.
3. BTN is low end? Oh Karl :) We do around 35Gbps, have pops on 5 continents, have more peers than some people have IP addys allocated to them.

We have had a couple of customers move to us complaining about ServerCentral. I don't know what the root of the problems were, but "firing" a customer, doesn't seem to be a good way to get new ones, though there could be legitimate reasons for that as well. I won't go so far as to say that they have poor support. From what I've heard they have very good support, and the 24/7 onsite is very nice feature they offer. We would love to be able to provide that, it's just not possible quite yet.

And to say a provider is low end can really be construed in a number of ways. From what I've seen, they are very low priced, and that tends to go hand in hand with "low end." I'm not saying that low end bandwidth is bad. In fact, I'd probably say that it is often quite good. However, it is significantly cheaper than we've seen from other providers, such as Savvis and Level(3). Again, nothing at all against BtN, as we're probably going to be adding them soon ourselves.

Originally posted by ardent

More importantly: Go Red Sox!


Well, coming back from 3-0 to tie the series up 3-3 is amazing in itself. Hopefully they can pull off game 7. I hate the Yankees. :)

Originally posted by sirrenny
Teleglobe hasn't been in SC's mix for quite awhile and when they did it was a test circuit. Simple traceroutes show alot of nice quality bandwidth providers such as UUNet and L3. I'm sure your support is better Karl since you only have one M20 on your network. I mean two routers is hard work and then you would have support issues. Your customers would find themselves back at FDC asking questions like "WHERE IS THE CORE."

OK, I knew I had seen TeleGlobe and this time I was thinking of Telia.

Yes, as I said, Server Central does have a lot of nice networks and with the number of providers they have I feel they do have a very nice network, I just don't feel it has reached the quality it could be at.

Right now we have an M20 router and are putting in another Juniper shortly. I'm just wondering though, what do the number of routers have to do with the level of support? Also, what in the world does FDC have to do with anything? Then bringing back a quote from someone who hasn't worked for my company for several years, nice...

I guess it's just a flame, oh well... What in the world do you have against me? We provide a high level of service to our clients and have yet to lose a dedicated server or colocation client. Yes, we are smaller than Server Central, but you've got to start somewhere. I don't know why I should be aknowledging someone who feels there is a connection to the number of routers one has to the level of support they offer and thinks we have some connection to FDC...

Originally posted by ardent
I won't self promote as I don't like selling colo in CHI.

BTN is a low end provider? Jordan buys from Teleglobe? Jordan lost two customers because of poor support?


I will answer in reverse order.

1. SCN fired those customers. SCN is the only outfit in CHI with 24/7 onsite so I have flipped custs to SCN and they love the stuff.
2. Jordan doesn't buy from Teleglobe. There was a test circuit that went away eons ago.
3. BTN is low end? Oh Karl :) We do around 35Gbps, have pops on 5 continents, have more peers than some people have IP addys allocated to them.

Nothing against Karl, he's always been good to me but karma plays a huge role in this ever contracting game we play...

More importantly: Go Red Sox!

Blah.

Chris

1. It is more than two customers and how do you know who they are and why they moved? THey have told us it was because of a lack of support and that is what I am going on. We have near 24/7 support and will be having 24/7 onsite support in the near future, for the record.

2. As I said in the other one I'm sorry. I knew I saw TeleGlobe at one point and then now I accidentally refered to TeleGlobe when I meant Telia.

3. All I'm saying is BtN is a lower end carrier. I don't see how you can say that's not true. Yes, you guys have a Tier 1 network and offer an amazing product for the price. I know I have seen some poor routes from Europe and from isolated locations in the US. I know it's far from a huge problem, but it does prevent me from classing you together with Level(3), MCI, Savvis, etc. Definately a great service but not a high end provider. I'm sure you know what I mean, I definately meant no disrespect to BtN, as we too are planning on getting BtN bandwidth. For the price you can't do any better, and I seriously mean that, I just don't see the network at the same level of the other networks I mentioned.


I would like to add that I have no direct experience with ServerCentral and I can only gauge them by what former customers tell me and traces to their network. If either of my sources are incorrect I am sorry.

Thought I'd correct this typo before someone bounces on it. I meant to say BtN has a top-rate network but they aren't Tier 1, not that they have a Tier 1 network. I know they don't peer with a number of large carriers, but they do have a TON of peering routes.

karl-i can see why someone would strike back at your statements on SCN, BtN, etc: they don't seem to be based on much hard evidence and you contradicted yourself more than a few times within the thread. sorry, but true.

regardless..back to the original question from blueface. can someone else give him another objective opinion. im interested in the feedback.

In response to Karl, I may have added issues unrelated to the conversation that are outdated and have humor to certain ppl on WHT. I am sure Karl runs a good network (do you really pay direct Equinix pricing? :)) and I haven't heard of any of his customers with an issue concerning his network. Yes it was a moderate flame, but I do feel its important to have the facts when making statements about other ppl's networks. In SC's case most of them are available online, via IM, or beers at the local pub.

Keep it going guys :D

I understand why Karl classified BTN as lower end carrier due to the price. However, I think BTN has a great network there. Ping and traceroutes from Europe, UK, Asia and Africa look better than other providers, thanks to their MPLS network. Of course MPLS itself can invites another long discussion :)

I've been using BTN from one of their largest customers inside Equinix VA and their quality and uptime have been impressive. There was a heavy DDoS attack last month but it was sorted out quickly within a few mins. I believe BTN also has peering with many Tier-1 providers like UUNet, Sprint, Verio, AboveNet, XO, TWTC, and Savvis too. I always consider BTN as a humble Tier-1 network with an affordable pricing. IMHO we have to stop classifying a Tier-1 network or not just by judging from its price, but instead on the real performance of the network.

Regarding Telia on SC routes from Europe, yes I have seen a lot of them too and I have been mentioning it since my first post.

BTN has Sprint? Like WHOA

Yes, I believe so, but maybe Chris can give more detailed information. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by moosh28
karl-i can see why someone would strike back at your statements on SCN, BtN, etc: they don't seem to be based on much hard evidence and you contradicted yourself more than a few times within the thread. sorry, but true.

regardless..back to the original question from blueface. can someone else give him another objective opinion. im interested in the feedback.

Where did I contradict myself?

Also, I simply stated what my customers told me about SCN as well as my findings from tracing to SC, a lot of traces following BtN, etc. As for BtN, what I said is correct. They are a lower priced provider, they have a good network, but they are just not a tier 1 provider as they don't peer with Savvis, Global Crossing, AT&T, Level(3), etc. They just don't compare with the likes of Savvis and Level(3) and I honestly don't see how you can disagree with that.

First of all, Karl over at Steadfast Networks and Ray have an excellent product and network and I for one don't appreciate you ditching them as you have no direct experience with them. We have been using his network for many months and are completely happy with it.

Karl and Ray are both excellent guys and they have a good network with a good engineer running it.

BTN does have a good network as Karl stated. However, they don't meet the quality of Level3, MCI, or Savvis. I would also agree with Karl on this one. I would choose Level3, MCI, or Savvis over BTN. BTN does have a good international connections and also has good connections here but, however I would still choose the above over BTN. They are lower end provider with a good network and a good product behind it.

I have also heard some negative thing about Server Central from PM's on these boards with me discussing about them in this thread and also working directly with SC. They have a good product and Jordan runs a good network over there.

However, the network wasnt' the reason why we decided not to use them. It was another issue. We had the paperwork already signed and had plans on turning them up but, due to some other issues with SC we decided not to.

You can't go wrong with Karl at Steadfast and you can't go wrong with BTN Access either.

http://www.fixedorbit.com/AS/3/AS3491.htm

Checkout the list. :-) I'm not sure their relation to each carrier, or if it's all still correct but it's something pretty valid to go on.

Originally posted by KarlZimmer
but they are just not a tier 1 provider as they don't peer with Savvis, Global Crossing, AT&T, Level(3), etc. 

So, to be a Tier 1 provider you must peer with either Savvis, GC, AT&T or L3?  I always thought a Tier 1 provider was a company that owned their own infrastructure ie.  fiber, pops etc. 

 

Lets not go down the Tier1 BS road again

Originally posted by tpetersen
So, to be a Tier 1 provider you must peer with either Savvis, GC, AT&T or L3?  I always thought a Tier 1 provider was a company that owned their own infrastructure ie.  fiber, pops etc. 

 
To be a "tier 1" IP network, you must peer with every other tier 1 IP network. You can't be transit-free and still have global reachability without peering with everyone else who is transit-free. That's why it's difficult to grow to that size. That is how tier 1 is defined, that is how it has always been, and only fools and marketing departments from networks who don't qualify will give you any argument.

jsw6, which "tier" would you classify pccwbtn and how do you rate their network/support/clue[ness](tm'd rusko:D) :D

Originally posted by ardent

More importantly: Go Red Sox!

Blah.

Chris

Man I can't believe you just said that, now I'm gonna have to stay away from providers using BTN...

GO CARDINALS!!!!

Originally posted by jsw6
To be a "tier 1" IP network, you must peer with every other tier 1 IP network. You can't be transit-free and still have global reachability without peering with everyone else who is transit-free. That's why it's difficult to grow to that size. That is how tier 1 is defined, that is how it has always been, and only fools and marketing departments from networks who don't qualify will give you any argument.

Where the heck did you get that definition...

Here is a good wikipedia def:

Tier 1 carrier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Tier 1 carrier is a telco or ISP that is at the top of the telecommunications peering and settlements food chain. Although there is no formal definition, the following statements generally hold:

* Tier 1 operators typically have operations in more than one country
* Tier 1 operators own and operate their own physical networks, and either own or part-own their international submarine cable links.
* Tier 1 operators have revenue-neutral peering agreements with other Tier 1 operators, and generally do not pay for transit.

For a list of Tier 1 carriers, see List of tier 1 internet service providers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_carrier

Also from Wikipedia:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The following are Tier 1 ISPs (in alphabetically order):

* AT&T
* AOL Transit Data Network (ATDN)
* BBN/Genuity
* British Telecom (BT)
* Cable & Wireless
* Connect Internet Solutions
* Deutsche Telekom
* Global Crossing
* Level 3
* NTT / Verio
* Primus Telecom
* Optus
* Qwest
* Sprint
* Telstra
* UUNET (owned by Worldcom, doing business as MCI)
* Williams Communications


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tier_1_internet_service_providers

sirrenny: BTN has Sprint? Like WHOA
blueface: Yes, I believe so, but maybe Chris can give more detailed information. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-> We have Sprint connectivity in some places, not in others.


BitOMagic: BTN does have a good network as Karl stated. However, they don't meet the quality of Level3, MCI, or Savvis.
-> Agreed although maybe I'm old school but I will always think of Savvis as CW. MCI? Gawd. They have been falling apart. Trace to ASH/VNA MCI from Europe. Yup-- that's Chicago you're going through. Use ATT and Sprint as the good examples.


BitOMagic: http://www.fixedorbit.com/AS/3/AS3491.htm Checkout the list. :-) I'm not sure their relation to each carrier, or if it's all still correct but it's something pretty valid to go on.
-> Fixedorbit is not the best or most complete resource. Some private peers are missing but you get the picture. We've got customers in Asia, South America, Europe, the Middle East, and of course, North America. Customers in the US are content-heavy but customers elsewhere are a lot of eyeballs. So when your customers come in from overseas, odds are either their ISP or their ISP's upstream is on our network or we peer IN COUNTRY so your customer gets on our network quicker and is whooshed to your content all MPLS'd up as opposed to being dragged all over the place. We peer off about 85-90% of our traffic in the US. The rest either goes to our own eyeball customers or to transit. The goal is to get the 85%-90% as close to 100% as possible because it makes for a better experience for customers and you're not paying for transit :)


As far as the tier 1 stuff...

IMHO:

Who cares. As long as you have mutliple paths to full routes, good support, etc. I have always defined Tier 1 as your OWN fiber (not IRU but you actually *own* it) and you have settlement free connectivity to every AS. If I personally had to choose between a host who had full routes from five different providers and ANY single Tier 1, I would go with the guy who has 5 different providers because he has multiple paths to the world and he is going to care a lot more about you than a huge megalithic tier 1 especially if there's some vmg/routescience in there.

As far as the Boston stuff-- I grew up there so it's nice to see the occasional victory.

Thanks for the info Chris! I don't mind to discuss more about BTN on this thread and I'm also quite a fan of BTN for the price and quality :)

So does BTN own the fibers? and do you actually pay for all those peerings and transits?

We do not own fiber and I can't imagine the headaches and expenses that go along with it. We are agile and would never want the financial burden of perpetual maintenance on glass in the ground. You can see the financial straits of those that do carry the burden.

We have OC48's/STM16's all over the place as well as MPLS interconnects for both failover transport as well as "burstable" transport. That is-- if we bring on 4 or 5 Gbps worth of new customers in a month-- it happens-- we aren't scurrying to turn up new OC48's-- we can just move it on our MPLS interconnects (and no you don't need MPLS to do this but it helps with QoS).

All of our peering is settlement free and transit we pay for.

Hey,
Who do you guys use for fiber?

as far as who we use for fiber--- ping me on aim.

Originally posted by dk2
Where the heck did you get that definition...


i understand why you are surprised when encountering people who know what they're talking about. try not to judge others by your measure, perhaps? jsw is perfectly correct.


Here is a good wikipedia def:


wikipedia is not the end all be all of factual correctness.


* Tier 1 operators typically have operations in more than one country
* Tier 1 operators own and operate their own physical networks, and either own or part-own their international submarine cable links.


these are attributes, but not requirements. these attributes, however, follow logically from having to fulfill the below requirement.


* Tier 1 operators have revenue-neutral peering agreements with other Tier 1 operators, and generally do not pay for transit.


this is equivalent to what jsw said. in order to be transit-free (ie "do not pay for transit") you have to have settlement-free peering in place with all other tier1 carriers, as only that will give you all the routes.

paul