i dunno man... i look more n more into their network... and have lately started seeing hops labeled under psi.net... and peering points stay in the PSINet ASN... and peers changing from the cogent ASN to the PSINet ASN... why? nobody large wants to associate themselves with cogent? i mean... AOL did just drop their 5Gbps of cogent peering...

*curious*

oh... top that off with... more and more budget providers are actually using providers other than cogent... heh... which i find kinda funny... i mean... williams, yipes... less cogent floating around... heh... only sites i c left are some porn ones... n maybe a few freehosts... heh...

hey Hommie G, might watch which button you push next time :D

what ya mean dude? about me pushing reply instead of edit? i hate having those little "last edited by netdude on xx.xx.xx" messages at the bottom... looks bloody annoying... lol

Originally posted by porcupine
hey Hommie G, might watch which button you push next time :D

Because Cogent does not qualify for free peering and don't want to pay. Pretty much the answer in a nut shell.

Originally posted by netdude
what ya mean dude? about me pushing reply instead of edit? i hate having those little "last edited by netdude on xx.xx.xx" messages at the bottom... looks bloody annoying... lol



I meant more so because you started a new thread mid conversation :D

I think you are about to see a bunch of hosts dropping them (at least the smart ones that are at the end of their contracts) due to the peering and performance issues.

this will mean their traffic will get a little better for a while as some of the load comes off - but the peering going away was predicted and unless they raise prices - the other major prividers are going to continue to drop them to get them out of the market. this is where you will see prices creep up over the next 2 years. I think we are near the bottom of the bandwidth pricing market.

you are now seeing the big guys also doing deals that are near cogent pricing to get rid of them as well. I think that we are going to see them in trouble shortly.

i always figured their business model was just too flawed... their target market (business end-user access) is ideally suited for a different solution (intra-building internet access or DSL rather than a 100Mbps feed)... amazing they lasted as long as they have... mostly because of their psi.net aquisition i'd figure... wonder how long ppl will keep on dealing with psi.net, as the b/w usage starts shifting from the typical psi.net usage... (psi.net with their size and age has (err, correction, had) a lot of end users on it, which was good and all, but with cogent's usage shifting it all around, not good)... ???

i was just going over cogent's site again and about their guarantees on network quality n all (<75ms network latency, etc)... heh... damn it all looks so impressive... hehehehe... i was just thinking about their claim to non-oversubscribed bandwidth... amazing how that claim is perfectly true when u read it word-for-word, but if you interpret it to reality, its such a lie... lol... especially with the AOL fiasco... heh...

btw... sorry, my bad... wasn't aware there was another thread about this... :|

Originally posted by porcupine


I meant more so because you started a new thread mid conversation :D

dont get me wrong - cogent ahs been great and has filled a prticular niche need. however - they now have not bent to sit their custoimers on pricing - they still want to charge in 100 meg increments - even on gig lines. this wont fly with any one who is reasonably big. the other providers who have much better networks are te same effecitve pricing now when you evaaluate the way the billing is done on a cash out basis for what you get and you dont gt tagged with the cogent issue on your net.

if they were offering gig lines for 3000 for the first 100 meg and 30 per meg over that - it might be worth doing biz even with some of the problems - but you can not run a big hosting op with 100 meg lines all over the place. doesnt work.

Aaaaand yet another netdude vs. Cogent thread :yawn:

I don't know what to think that's why i'm goin to say the first thing that locks like...


AOL lossing market and wanna make a little hard to cogent to be a good backbone provider ?


Try to put cogent in a bad spot beacuse they don't want to lose more clients ?

I think if Cogent were smart they would get back their peering with AOL, even if it costs some money. I'm sure paying AOL for some peering will be cheaper in the long run than the number of customers that are going to cancel, and the number of potential customers they are going to scare away because of their disregard for their current customers.

I think AOL will lose a few customers too from this whole situation, because I for one am reevaluating my Roadrunner service since I can't reach many webpages - such as TechTV.com that is hosted by PSINet.

I don't know i think people will rather move to the cheaper server / ISP rather than cancel it cogent...


AOL is doing and killing it's own image....


I can't see a good think for AOL beacuse when users try to access certain pages and they can't when they are surfing true AOL but they can when they access true AT&T ( ex: ) they will think that AOL sucks...and stuff like that...


I think AOL will pay badly in the end from this act that they did...



PS : They don't seen to have any brains... in there...

The niche they were filling was the 'i want everything for nothing' niche. You dont make money filling that niche, and they probably won't be around much longer if they don't pull some serious **** together and get things fixed.

-Brendan

Originally posted by sailor
dont get me wrong - cogent ahs been great and has filled a prticular niche need. however - they now have not bent to sit their custoimers on pricing - they still want to charge in 100 meg increments - even on gig lines. this wont fly with any one who is reasonably big. the other providers who have much better networks are te same effecitve pricing now when you evaaluate the way the billing is done on a cash out basis for what you get and you dont gt tagged with the cogent issue on your net.

if they were offering gig lines for 3000 for the first 100 meg and 30 per meg over that - it might be worth doing biz even with some of the problems - but you can not run a big hosting op with 100 meg lines all over the place. doesnt work.

I see people talking about other carriers offering pricing close to cogent.. I've checked EVERY decent provider and nobody is even close, especially in smaller (100mbps or less) increments. If ANYONE knows a contact at any decent tier-1 provider that can provide less than $100/meg pricing for under 100mbps increments shoot me a PM :> Cogent is so bad we wouldn't even touch them.. Some others which I won't mention but are mentioned in this thread are also pretty bad :/ Please let me know! (PM please no need to fill up the thread)

AOL just cut them off ........ found this

>From Cogent:


====================================
The issue in this case is with AOL. We have had an ongoing peering
relationship with them based on a connection of 2 OC-12s. We recently
upgraded these connections to include 2 OC-48s to accommodate our
significant traffic exchange. These connections have been up and running
smoothly for 2 weeks now. Overall, we've spent over $100 thousand to create
this robust peering infrastructure.


This week, however, AOL announced a unilateral decision to cut off all our
connections. This announcement came as a surprise to all involved and the
reasons behind it remain unclear.
===================================


It seems that the loss of peering with AOL is causing performance issues for
companies relying on Cogent transit. Given the amount of discussion that
goes on here regarding Cogent and similar operators, I thought the
information might be of interest.

We'll here is my 2 cents. :\

The problem Cogent is having right now, is they allow spam houses on there network, even though it is against their AUP, but does not cut them off.

I heard this was the main reason AOL cut the peering with Cogent, because of the massive amount of SPAM AOL was getting hit with from servers located on Cogent.

Again, this is just what I heard, it could be wrong.

But I know AOL does not put up with spammers, so it kinda made sense to me.

I'm sure getting hit hard. I like deviantArt which is pretty much all Cogent, and since AOL cut peering (I'm RR so I go on their pipes) my pings go from under 20 ms to 3000 ms

Originally posted by SrvOutsource
We'll here is my 2 cents. :\

The problem Cogent is having right now, is they allow spam houses on there network, even though it is against their AUP, but does not cut them off.

I heard this was the main reason AOL cut the peering with Cogent, because of the massive amount of SPAM AOL was getting hit with from servers located on Cogent.

Again, this is just what I heard, it could be wrong.

But I know AOL does not put up with spammers, so it kinda made sense to me.

Spam has dropped off lately..That is a good thing.

Umm... I could be wrong, but I'm 95% sure that Cogent bought out PSI, which would explain why traffic goes through them. Here we go: http://cogentco.com/News/news_04022002.htm... April 2nd, describing their acquisition of PSInet

Originally posted by fog
Umm... I could be wrong, but I'm 95% sure that Cogent bought out PSI, which would explain why traffic goes through them. Here we go: http://cogentco.com/News/news_04022002.htm... April 2nd, describing their acquisition of PSInet

Yea, they bought PSInet awhile ago.


Has anyone used them (Cogent) as a transport loop?

I can tell you that we are almost done iwth them - there is a small amount still running on them on our network - which will like ly be gone in a few days - and our performance has gone through the roof. most problems we were seeing were actually related to them and their peering issues. Beware........

I heard this was the main reason AOL cut the peering with Cogent, because of the massive amount of SPAM AOL was getting hit with from servers located on Cogent. According to everything I have been reading, it's because Cogent failed to deliver the proper traffic ratio and AOL offered the same peering at a price. Because Cogent does not have the cashflow, they did not want to pay and feel they should not have to pay.

The Cogent shareholders hereby object to this thread :angry:

Originally posted by DeathNova
The Cogent shareholders hereby object to this thread :angry:

are you a shareholder? there are only 4 more trading days to get your write off on this years taxes. If you dont jump on it - you will have to wait another year and then surely you will have your write off. ;)

Has Cogent considered one of the public peerings points (PAIX, Globix (http://www.globix.com/dynamic/htmlos/003244.3.8665312356900025792?), etc)?

Originally posted by roly
Has Cogent considered one of the public peerings points (PAIX, Globix (http://www.globix.com/dynamic/htmlos/003244.3.8665312356900025792?), etc)?

Cogent already uses public peering. Just because they have a presence at these locations doesn't mean that other providers are required to give them unlimited free access to their networks.

Btw, when did Globix become a peering facility? or were you thinking of Equinix?

Originally posted by Dragoon


Cogent already uses public peering. Just because they have a presence at these locations doesn't mean that other providers are required to give them unlimited free access to their networks.

Btw, when did Globix become a peering facility? or were you thinking of Equinix?
Globix does do peering I think, don't know when they started.

Can't Cogent just pay for peering?

Has anyone seen ANY improvment in Cogent network?

Is it getting better/worse/same?

Globix is not a peering point like Equinix etc. they'r a big hosting provider with their own tier2 network in the us and some parts of europe ... (see globix.com)

best regards,

Originally posted by SrvOutsource
Has anyone seen ANY improvment in Cogent network?

Is it getting better/worse/same?

Yes, it has improved a little. From 4000ms pings last week, we're down to 1800ms to the AOL network lol Anyway, they're working on this and they better get this fixed soon otherwise they'll have quite a hard time recruiting any new customers.

DOn't they have the following listed on there site under QoS:

http://www.cogentco.net/serviceprovider/qoselim.html


Cogent network performance:

Network Latency ........................................ <75 milliseconds

Metro Latency ............................................. <5 milliseconds

Reliability (Dropped Packets) .................. ~0%

Availability .................................................... 99.99%


Are they giving credit due to this problem?

Originally posted by SrvOutsource
DOn't they have the following listed on there site under QoS:

http://www.cogentco.net/serviceprovider/qoselim.html


Cogent network performance:

Network Latency ........................................ <75 milliseconds

Metro Latency ............................................. <5 milliseconds

Reliability (Dropped Packets) .................. ~0%

Availability .................................................... 99.99%


Are they giving credit due to this problem?

:eek: I think i tried that before, 1. they edited a lot of that stuff awhile ago (it's not in the contracts, etc. at least not when we had signed), and 2. it's their internal network only (their network latency before the edit was better i could swear, i mean 75ms in your internal network isn't exactly impressive), but it doesen't include peering points last i recall because they're external hops, sure you'll get < 75ms on the side of the point that cogent owns, but not on the other, so they qualify it as outside their network.

lol this is harsh, i just tested from aol in the uk on dialup and i ping 190 ish to newyork level3, then it peers to cogent, and it jumps to silly numbers. 3100+


10 332 ms 216 ms 221 ms 252 ms 214 ms 218 ms 214 ms 221 ms 353 ms 217 ms 215 ms 216 ms 223 ms 226 ms 231 ms gigabitethernet5-0.core1.NewYork1.Level3.net [64.159.17.37]

11 1120 ms 1079 ms 1063 ms 1126 ms 1077 ms 1071 ms 1077 ms 1084 ms 1075 ms 1075 ms 1078 ms 1079 ms 1073 ms 1075 ms 1073 ms [204.6.134.162]

12 3068 ms 3077 ms 3078 ms * 3064 ms 3189 ms 3125 ms 3144 ms 3142 ms 3168 ms 3177 ms 3190 ms 3219 ms 3223 ms 3231 ms p5-0.br01.jfk01.atlas.psi.net [154.54.1.197]
b

13 3138 ms 3076 ms 3089 ms * 3064 ms 3179 ms 3125 ms 3132 ms 3141 ms 3168 ms 3185 ms 3187 ms 3220 ms 3223 ms 3231 ms p14-0.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.1.21]


are the pertinent hops. all together now, 'your get what you pay for' :)

Originally posted by Gernot


Yes, it has improved a little. From 4000ms pings last week, we're down to 1800ms to the AOL network lol Anyway, they're working on this and they better get this fixed soon otherwise they'll have quite a hard time recruiting any new customers.

Yeah its improving because people are dropping cogent like a bad habbit right now so less traffic on their network.

we have had them turned down for 2 days now and I have to say our customers are ecstatic. They were a pretty good network there for a while - I am sorry to see them degrade like this.

They did wonders for ip pricing - I just hope it stays where it is for all of us.

So does this mean DV2 is disconnecting from Cogent as well? I have seen multiple threads here and otherwise of people cancelling them, or are you just waiting for them to Fix it if there is a fix?

I mean before this whole fiasco I have had no issues with their network or the performance of it. I am not sure if it is because of the network I run on it or not, but, none the less...

:) DV2 has disconnected from them as in past tense - done - gone - finis.

Originally posted by Just_Kp
So does this mean DV2 is disconnecting from Cogent as well? I have seen multiple threads here and otherwise of people cancelling them, or are you just waiting for them to Fix it if there is a fix?

I mean before this whole fiasco I have had no issues with their network or the performance of it. I am not sure if it is because of the network I run on it or not, but, none the less...

I think Cogent will be seeing alot of cancellations if they don't get the peering issue fixed ASAP.

Is it worth them loosing $3k minimum clients per month, for just not paying for a OC-12 or something?

Whether the companies are under contract or not.

I agree with ya, but it seems to me there is something more to it. If you recall from the other threads the peer was recently upgraded with AOL ( I think they said 2 weeks prior to the disconnection). Was it a ratio issue? if so why did both sides agree for a upgrade, then AOL Back out?

That's a good question, that no one I know of has the same answer on.

I've gotten:

1. It was a test connection with AOL.

2. Cogent didn't want to pay for peering

3. AOL cut the connection due to the high volume of spam from Cogent.

Originally posted by roly

Globix does do peering I think, don't know when they started.

Can't Cogent just pay for peering?


This is funny to me for following reasons:

Cogent sells at 30/mbit if you buy in a large quantity. Most tier-1 providers sell at atleast $150/mbit (yes I know this is low). But lets theoretically they can buy at $150/mbit, they are loosing $120/mbit. Now if they bought from some cheaper providers like aleron or algx they could help their peering problem but it adds a lot more hops.

Originally posted by SrvOutsource
I think Cogent will be seeing alot of cancellations if they don't get the peering issue fixed ASAP.

Is it worth them loosing $3k minimum clients per month, for just not paying for a OC-12 or something?

Whether the companies are under contract or not.

Might fall into the "cant pay for what you cant afford, but do need" category at this speed, :eek:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45819-2002Dec27.html

I just came back to post the link to that article

All this mess over $75,000 per month? :angry: We are satisfied Cogent customers ourselves, however, our uplink to them is on the west coast. Was only the east coast affected?

$75,000 is pretty steep for direct peering if its only going to their end users. If this is a general peering only to aol customers, there shouldn't be any restrictions whatsoever because aol is getting "something for nothing" as is cogent (compared to pumping that transit out their regular pipes). If cogent and aol are doign full peering, not just to their respective customers, then i can see how this would happen (eg cogent is peering transit off to aol's network to get around to the rest of the world as well).

I'd guess since they stated they had 2xoc12's before (correct?) that cogent was using around 1500mbps probably, so that'd bring them around $50/mbps for this.

oh yeah, and i bet this has already cost Cogent $75,000/mo of business considering the amount of people who have abruptly dropped 'em from their networks due to this.

Not sure if it is costing Cogent 75k a month cause of lost customers you know a 100mbps is only 3k a month.... that would be alot of customers.


Also Noone would call it peering if Cogent used AOL to get to AOL's peers, that would be transit

Originally posted by dk2



This is funny to me for following reasons:

Cogent sells at 30/mbit if you buy in a large quantity. Most tier-1 providers sell at atleast $150/mbit (yes I know this is low). But lets theoretically they can buy at $150/mbit, they are loosing $120/mbit. Now if they bought from some cheaper providers like aleron or algx they could help their peering problem but it adds a lot more hops.

Well, frankly $150 / mbit is too much. If Cogent was to buy about 1.5gb/sec they'd never have to pay $75k because the funny thing is that I've read that many tier-1 carriers don't want to be associated with Cogent but at the same time they offer bandwidth at pretty much the same prices.

Well here is a question - if you were a real tier 1 backbone like att or uunet or sprint etc... why would you ever want to pier with cogent? here is a company capatilizing on others misfortunes (if cogent had to pay to lay their infrastructure there prices would be the same as the rest), undercutting your business by a factor of 100, offering a "non-professional" quality of service, and stealing customers away from you just because its so darn cheap... and then wanting you to peer with them? no way. On top of that even if you did consider a peer, you know that you would have all these peering connections with other tier 1 backbones who all respect each others traffic so you would have similar traffic on your peering points until you get to the cogent one which would be smashed all the time. It would basically be hurting your business while helping the competition offer unrealistic pricing and hurting your business in the process - at least that is the input we get from our providers... att, savvis, uunet, cox, sprint, level 3, broadwing, global crossing, cables and wireless...

think about cogent for a second - if they have zero peers - their bandwidth is useless - bandwidth is all about your peers - unless you have every end user that exists on your network, your bandwidth is only as good as your peers.

still can't neglect the fact that cogent was not meeting their peering ratios... plain and simple... doesn't matter what excuse cogent comes up, with cogent violated the rules... n the peering, was two OC48s... LOTs of bandwidth... n cogent not following the rules on that is pretty big... heh... heck, i find it amazing that cogent actually even met a 3:1 ratio... i thought it'd be more... hmm... maybe thats with cogent trying to control the rate atleast somewhat...

needless to say, cogent was trying to be cheap and they got burned... what do you guys think this is doing for level3's peering arrangement with AOL? its probably tipping the scales a bit on them too, not too long before AOL has grounds to go to level3 and say "cough up $$$ or we cut u too"... hmm... afterall, AOL is hella bigger than even level3... ?

Originally posted by netdude
still can't neglect the fact that cogent was not meeting their peering ratios... plain and simple... doesn't matter what excuse cogent comes up, with cogent violated the rules... n the peering, was two OC48s... LOTs of bandwidth... n cogent not following the rules on that is pretty big... heh... heck, i find it amazing that cogent actually even met a 3:1 ratio... i thought it'd be more... hmm... maybe thats with cogent trying to control the rate atleast somewhat...

needless to say, cogent was trying to be cheap and they got burned... what do you guys think this is doing for level3's peering arrangement with AOL? its probably tipping the scales a bit on them too, not too long before AOL has grounds to go to level3 and say "cough up $$$ or we cut u too"... hmm... afterall, AOL is hella bigger than even level3... ?

AOL buys transit from Level3 - they don't peer with them.

Originally posted by DeathNova
All this mess over $75,000 per month? :angry: We are satisfied Cogent customers ourselves, however, our uplink to them is on the west coast. Was only the east coast affected?

No since I get 3000ms+ latency to SDColo's cogent line (they're temp. re-routed over level3) which is about 15 miles away.

i have a hard time believing AOL is buying bandwidth from level3... heh... private peer maybe, but not buying... especially when level3 is putting so much extra transfer onto AOL's network at present, which AOL is not responsible for causing (cogent/level3 is)...

Originally posted by jkehe


AOL buys transit from Level3 - they don't peer with them.

i also have a hard time believing Cogent will be able to get two OC48s for $75000/month anywhere else... heh

Originally posted by atjeu
Well here is a question - if you were a real tier 1 backbone like att or uunet or sprint etc... why would you ever want to pier with cogent? here is a company capatilizing on others misfortunes (if cogent had to pay to lay their infrastructure there prices would be the same as the rest), undercutting your business by a factor of 100, offering a "non-professional" quality of service, and stealing customers away from you just because its so darn cheap... and then wanting you to peer with them? no way. On top of that even if you did consider a peer, you know that you would have all these peering connections with other tier 1 backbones who all respect each others traffic so you would have similar traffic on your peering points until you get to the cogent one which would be smashed all the time. It would basically be hurting your business while helping the competition offer unrealistic pricing and hurting your business in the process - at least that is the input we get from our providers... att, savvis, uunet, cox, sprint, level 3, broadwing, global crossing, cables and wireless...



Well if your providers are saying that, then why do your providers listed above all peer with Cogent?

The bottom line is really that Cogents network (To me) appears to be primarily Content providers, AOL's network appears (To ME) to be primarily users. How can you even think the peer ration would be equal?

The main thing in peering is ideally no company would want to peer with a competitor, but if you don't your users cant reach or takes forever for them to reach your competitions customers that they want to reach, thus causing Bad perfomance for your users.

cogent's network content providers? i'd say mostly smut peddlers, warez distribution hubs and spammers... anybody that needs a lotta bandwidth really really cheap that doesn't care about latency... but hey, thats just my opinion... lol... there are no/very very few big name sites on the cogent network... pretty much all other networks have atleast a big name site or two...

and yes, cogent does peer a lot... but say you are in san fran on verio... and the server you are connecting is in san fran on cogent... and cogent has only a peer with verio in washington, dc (hypothetically speaking)... and a peer with level3 in san fran who peers with verio in san fran... which route u think it'll take?

all the other providers... they atleast have extensive peering nationwide with each partner... not just pick a city and beg another backbone to hookup there and then reroute all traffic onto that backbone through that specific point (which clearly appeared to be the case with cogent/aol)...

cogent is a joke, and providers that base themselves solely off it are too... heh... just my little rant...

i used to be a cogent customer b4 they even did their westward expansion... i had servers in DC with 'em... they were excellent... peering was top-notch and all... what they are today is nothing compared to what they used to be...

the last i ever used cogent was when i left fdcservers (pre-yipes days)...

[EDIT]
o wait... nevermind, just found some servers of mine on cogent... but i don't use 'em... they just sittin' there... LOL... i guess i should tell colo that i want them switched from cogent to verio... $30/Mbps vs $70/Mbps ... so its cheap... cuz i use <1Mbps...

Originally posted by Just_Kp

Well if your providers are saying that, then why do your providers listed above all peer with Cogent?

The bottom line is really that Cogents network (To me) appears to be primarily Content providers, AOL's network appears (To ME) to be primarily users. How can you even think the peer ration would be equal?

The main thing in peering is ideally no company would want to peer with a competitor, but if you don't your users cant reach or takes forever for them to reach your competitions customers that they want to reach, thus causing Bad perfomance for your users.

that's it .... exactly!
i'm sure also aol costumers are facing the situation that there's some content on cogent's network, they'd like to take advantage of, but just can't because of that whole mess ... so i'm sure also aol costumers are angry.
there are always two sides ...

best regards,

Originally posted by atjeu
offering a "non-professional" quality of service, and stealing customers away from you just because its so darn cheap...

That's funny. You do understand the principle of competition, don't you? Do you think the other carriers don't steal customers from each other? Yet they still peer with each other because they need to.

The problem in this case is that AOL doesn't need a connection to Cogent but Cogent needs a connection to AOL. And AOL wouldn't be a serious business if they didn't try to make money out of such a beneficial situation.

Anyway, I'm quite sure Cogent will resolve this situation quite soon because they're already feeling the heat of their customers. How they will resolve this is something I don't really care about.

If I were an AOL customer and I could not access some websites I'll be very angry.

I don't want to argue to know who is right between Cogent or AOL but it seems strange for me that AOL customers don't ask refund from AOL cause their connection is somewhat "limited".

Don't you think ?


BTW, that's funny, we manage 2 servers for a customer on Cogent BW and since then we got LESS and LESS stupid mails in your postmaster box, so great !

cogent has the right to be in the marketplace. If you look at companies like rackshack, costco, and walmart they are prime examples of companies that undercut everyone else yet still survive because there is a demand for cheaper goods out there.

Cogent is no different. There is an obvious need for cogent in the market otherwise people wouldn't buy it.

Originally posted by netdude
i have a hard time believing AOL is buying bandwidth from level3... heh... private peer maybe, but not buying... especially when level3 is putting so much extra transfer onto AOL's network at present, which AOL is not responsible for causing (cogent/level3 is)...



Why the hell if your level3 would you peer with AOL instead of them buying bandwidth from you? AOL is dial-up/dsl users, for those users to be able to access the internet they need to get on other networks. AOL dosen't house many large traffic websites so for level3 to peer with them it would not be benificial to level3. Your basically giving aol users free internet traffic to websites on your network why aol gets to charge them, seems like a pretty stupid idea to me. They only way i would see peering would be if time warner telecom peered with level3 and aol used time warner telecom.

Originally posted by TheVoice
cogent has the right to be in the marketplace. If you look at companies like rackshack, costco, and walmart they are prime examples of companies that undercut everyone else yet still survive because there is a demand for cheaper goods out there.

Cogent is no different. There is an obvious need for cogent in the market otherwise people wouldn't buy it.

Yes they are different, cogent needs the other providers to survive. Rackshack doesnt need anything from rackspace to survive... costco/walmart doesnt need anything from local competition to survive...

Originally posted by netdude
cogent's network content providers? i'd say mostly smut peddlers, warez distribution hubs and spammers... anybody that needs a lotta bandwidth really really cheap that doesn't care about latency... but hey, thats just my opinion... lol... there are no/very very few big name sites on the cogent network... pretty much all other networks have atleast a big name site or two...
and providers that base themselves solely off it are too... heh... just my little rant...

[EDIT]
o wait... nevermind, just found some servers of mine on cogent... but i don't use 'em... they just sittin' there... LOL... i guess i should tell colo that i want them switched from cogent to verio... $30/Mbps vs $70/Mbps ... so its cheap... cuz i use <1Mbps...

Well, being as your on Verio I doubt you dislike Cogent due to spam, If I recall it was Verio who's entire netblock was blacklisted, up to and Including their corporate mail servers due to the spamhaus's on their network. Where I have seen Cogent doing some mass exodus on the spammers of late..

can someone please name a few big name sites on the cogent network... something other than porn or gambling...

heck, even the profitable larger porn businesses won't use cogent no more... sites like thehun.net and al4a.com and netvideogirls used to be on cogent feeds... they ain't no more... i've actually seen a post by the owner of netvideogirls in some place spazzing about how much bullsh*t cogent is and how much it hurt his business... lol

consider the client base of verio... and the client base of cogent... compare... its more understandable that verio have more of a spam problem then cogent... but verio ain't losing business relationships (peers/etc) over it... although i do note there are other reasons for cogent losing peers....

Originally posted by Just_Kp


Well, being as your on Verio I doubt you dislike Cogent due to spam, If I recall it was Verio who's entire netblock was blacklisted, up to and Including their corporate mail servers due to the spamhaus's on their network. Where I have seen Cogent doing some mass exodus on the spammers of late..

Originally posted by Dilhole


Yes they are different, cogent needs the other providers to survive. Rackshack doesnt need anything from rackspace to survive... costco/walmart doesnt need anything from local competition to survive...

I dare to disagree. Rackspace does need something from Rackshack without which Rackspace's customers would be rather pissed. What if Rackshack blocked all traffic from Rackspace? Theoretically they can and it wouldn't be a legal problem. Think about all those customers complaining about their e-mails being returned etc.
Oh, they need each other a lot.

Originally posted by netdude
can someone please name a few big name sites on the cogent network... something other than porn or gambling...

heck, even the profitable larger porn businesses won't use cogent no more... sites like thehun.net and al4a.com and netvideogirls used to be on cogent feeds... they ain't no more... i've actually seen a post by the owner of netvideogirls in some place spazzing about how much bullsh*t cogent is and how much it hurt his business... lol

Thehun has never been on Cogent. They have been using HE for ages.
If you want sites, how about www.harvard.edu, www.kernel.org (www.isc.org) and others? They all have feeds to Cogent. You might have already heard of www.techtv.com

Originally posted by netdude
consider the client base of verio... and the client base of cogent... compare... its more understandable that verio have more of a spam problem then cogent... but verio ain't losing business relationships (peers/etc) over it... although i do note there are other reasons for cogent losing peers....



If you have such information to note, then please post your information or atleast a link to something confirming it, otherwise its just BS

isc peers with a lotta ISPs... they even peer with my canadian ISP... their primary transit comes over verio it seems...

www.harvard.edu comes over qwest for me... they're just one of the many places using cogent strictly on price... heh... their primary transit is qwest...

techtv is a client of PSINet... n was since b4 the cogent aquisition... i'd give it just a touch of time b4 they move due to unsatisfactory performance...

i could have sworn i had seen thehun on cogent... guess not... heh

Originally posted by Gernot


Thehun has never been on Cogent. They have been using HE for ages.
If you want sites, how about www.harvard.edu, www.kernel.org (www.isc.org) and others? They all have feeds to Cogent. You might have already heard of www.techtv.com

you seriously going to tell me that you think cogent has a larger client base than verio? cogent who can't even afford $75000/month for the sake of two OC48s...???

Originally posted by Just_Kp


If you have such information to note, then please post your information or atleast a link to something confirming it, otherwise its just BS

Originally posted by netdude
you seriously going to tell me that you think cogent has a larger client base than verio? cogent who can't even afford $75000/month for the sake of two OC48s...???



I am not going to argue over client base, Verio has been around longer then Cogent Also.. I was saying that in reference to your claim that Cogent was losing peers over spam issues? Or that is atleast what your message implied as was a response to my post on the verio blacklisting.

Originally posted by netdude
isc peers with a lotta ISPs... they even peer with my canadian ISP... their primary transit comes over verio it seems...

www.harvard.edu comes over qwest for me... they're just one of the many places using cogent strictly on price... heh... their primary transit is qwest...

techtv is a client of PSINet... n was since b4 the cogent aquisition... i'd give it just a touch of time b4 they move due to unsatisfactory performance...

i could have sworn i had seen thehun on cogent... guess not... heh



Well, ISC doesn't peer with Cogent. It has a Cogent feed. And why Harvard University has chosen Cogent is none of my business and I don't really care about it. Fact is that they have a GIG-E to Cogent.

I like how you state that techtv is going to leave Cogent soon. You must have some profound insider-knowledge.

did i say techtv is going to leave soon for sure? no... i said i'd give it a touch ... ... ... fact of the matter is that techtv has PSINet IPs... they did not even transfer onto cogent IPs... so... the fact with cogent is only because PSINet was bought out by cogent... PSINet actually had good peers... but even those peers dropped when cogent's traffic ratios weren't up to par... ??

how are you so sure that isc has a cogent feed? how do you know its not a peer? cuz i have done so many traceroutes onto isc... and they all go over either a peer or verio... only way i can get data over the cogent feed is via a cogent server... top it off with the fact that it appears the feed is coming from palo alto... i wonder which exchange might be at palo alto... hmm...

harvard... i'll get URLs later... but there were many URLs of news articles about how educational insitutions were getting cogent feeds because it was cheaper than their $300/Mbps genuity feeds... and what they do over the internet isn't nessecarily mission-critical... thats why an insititution like harvard has a qwest feed to host its own site...

Originally posted by Gernot


Well, ISC doesn't peer with Cogent. It has a Cogent feed. And why Harvard University has chosen Cogent is none of my business and I don't really care about it. Fact is that they have a GIG-E to Cogent.

I like how you state that techtv is going to leave Cogent soon. You must have some profound insider-knowledge.

The problem is with OC-12s, not 48's you muckrakers. :mad:

DeathNova, they were two OC48, not OC12s... (AOL issue, right?)

also... i am convinced cogent is giving some sort of "different" access to techtv...

my ISP peers with cogent... i do a trace to techtv, it goes from abovenet to cogent to techtv... telus (van, bc, canada -> seattle) -> metromedia (seattle -> palo alto) -> cogent (palo alto -> san jose)... 74ms (all added on hop between cogent and metromedia)...

but... i do a traceroute to someone like www.321host-it.com ... i get:
telus (van, bc, canada -> chicago) -> cogent (chicago -> san jose)... 112ms...

same thing with any other place i go to on cogent network on west coast... all get the long way around via chicago...

forgot to mention... my isp peers with PSINet, not cogent... it used to be cogent, but went PSINet a few months ago... i am guessing cogent couldn't maintain ratios... lol... so telus is giving PSINet a shot...

anybody ever notice the ~30-40ms latency added between metromedia handoffs to cogent in all their interconnect cities? these are two hops in the same city... with ~30-40ms latency increase, with continues on through the route...

Originally posted by netdude
did i say techtv is going to leave soon for sure? no... i said i'd give it a touch ... ... ... fact of the matter is that techtv has PSINet IPs... they did not even transfer onto cogent IPs... so... the fact with cogent is only because PSINet was bought out by cogent... PSINet actually had good peers... but even those peers dropped when cogent's traffic ratios weren't up to par... ??


Why shouldn't Cogent use PSINet's class A IP block?

Also, about PSI: 41 peers total (0.13%) (4 leaves). Those peers are really dropping like flies lol. And Cogent's peers: 194 peers total (0.62%) (18 leaves). Damn, so many leaves, awful lol.

Now, let's have a look at Exodus: 43 peers total (0.14%) (12 leaves). Ouch.
Let's have a look at Verio: 537 peers total (1.71%) (50 leaves), isn't that pretty much the same ratio as Cogent?

I must indeed say Cogent's losing peers like dropping flies lol.

ow well, you should remember Exodus was bought by C&W so i'm sure they have the full access to their Peers too.

best regards,

Originally posted by BiGWill
ow well, you should remember Exodus was bought by C&W so i'm sure they have the full access to their Peers too.

best regards,

Sure, if you want CW's peers, here we go: 788 peers total (2.51%) (82 leaves).

i do wonder if these stats include europe, asia etc. or if it's just the US. (i know l3 has it's own AS for their europe operation etc.)

best regards.

sorry to interrupt the thread, but, what site do you get those stats from? just curious :)

thanks in advance

Originally posted by BiGWill
i do wonder if these stats include europe, asia etc. or if it's just the US. (i know l3 has it's own AS for their europe operation etc.)

best regards.

It's their US-ASN but it seems that this is their main ASN because their others only have a few peers. Furthermore, their website www.cableandwireless.co.uk is also on their US ASN so I guess they don't use the others extensively.

When talking about Level3, here's Level3: 540 peers total (1.72%) (52 leaves). I have been unable to find Level3's European ASN because for example www.level3.de is also on their main ASN.

Originally posted by skylab
sorry to interrupt the thread, but, what site do you get those stats from? just curious :)

thanks in advance
I believe it is www.fixedorbit.com.

Peter

Originally posted by Gernot


I must indeed say Cogent's losing peers like dropping flies lol.

lol is right. lets look at how well those peering points are again....aol-cogent gone, level3-cogent congested, mfn-cogent congested.

Originally posted by ckpeter

I believe it is www.fixedorbit.com.

Peter

Yep, true.


lol is right. lets look at how well those peering points are again....aol-cogent gone, level3-cogent congested, mfn-cogent congested.

Since when has MFN-Cogent been congested please?

Btw, I'm quite happy to post the following traceroute:

traceroute to www.rr.com (24.30.203.14), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 f13.ba01.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.4.165) 0.583 ms 0.425 ms 0.390 ms
2 g0-2.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.177) 0.836 ms 0.618 ms 0.589 ms
3 p5-0.core03.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.146) 0.517 ms 0.495 ms 0.674 ms
4 ge12-0.mpr2.pao1.us.mfnx.net (64.124.11.177) 3.156 ms 1.590 ms 1.550 ms
5 so-4-1-0.mpr4.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (208.185.175.161) 2.134 ms 1.730 ms 1.683 ms
6 pos12-0.cr7.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (64.125.30.13) 3.049 ms 1.876 ms 1.654 ms
7 aol-above.sjc2.above.net (209.249.119.118) 1.879 ms 11.602 ms 5.046 ms
8 bb2-sje-P0-0.atdn.net (66.185.138.98) 3.231 ms 3.399 ms 3.452 ms
9 bb2-sun-P6-2.atdn.net (66.185.152.255) 4.971 ms 3.810 ms 3.978 ms
10 bb1-sun-P1-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.0) 3.731 ms 3.346 ms 3.306 ms
11 bb1-den-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.252) 28.539 ms 29.103 ms 28.228 ms
12 bb2-den-P1-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.137) 77.946 ms 77.078 ms 78.399 ms
13 bb2-kcy-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.189) 78.821 ms 77.232 ms 77.237 ms
14 bb1-kcy-P1-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.126) 78.835 ms 77.330 ms 77.606 ms
15 bb1-chi-P6-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.124) 74.484 ms 75.799 ms 77.893 ms
16 bb2-chi-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.131) 76.124 ms 74.687 ms 74.371 ms
17 bb2-vie-P10-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.215) 74.309 ms 75.771 ms 74.317 ms
18 bb2-rtc-P0-2.atdn.net (66.185.152.116) 75.161 ms 75.382 ms 77.227 ms
19 pop3-rtc-P10-0.atdn.net (66.185.140.131) 75.748 ms 76.158 ms 75.873 ms
20 rr-herndon.atdn.net (66.185.140.142) 74.536 ms 74.479 ms 75.579 ms
21 www.rr.com (24.30.203.14) 75.624 ms 76.083 ms 76.260 ms

Originally posted by Gernot

Since when has MFN-Cogent been congested please?

4 11 ms 12 ms SRP2-0.ORNGCA4-GSR1.socal.rr.com [66.75.161.190]
5 17 ms 17 ms pop1-las-P7-1.atdn.net [66.185.137.141]
6 19 ms 18 ms bb2-las-P0-0.atdn.net [66.185.137.130]
7 30 ms 26 ms bb2-sun-P5-0.atdn.net [66.185.152.23]
8 23 ms 23 ms bb2-sje-P0-2.atdn.net [66.185.152.254]
9 28 ms 25 ms pop1-sje-P6-0.atdn.net [66.185.138.99]
10 26 ms 24 ms pos8-0.cr7.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [209.249.119.117]
11 24 ms 26 ms so-6-2-0.mpr4.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [64.125.30.14]
12 33 ms 31 ms pos6-0.mpr2.pao1.us.mfnx.net [208.185.175.162]
13 2197 ms 2197 ms 64.124.11.181.cogentco.com [64.124.11.181]
14 2351 ms 2262 ms p6-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.145]
15 2353 ms 2264 ms p4-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.94]
16 2370 ms 2272 ms p13-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.73]
17 2369 ms 2272 ms p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.78]
18 2238 ms 2249 ms p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.5]
19 3011 ms 3121 ms p15-0.core01.tpa01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.46]
20 3016 ms 3123 ms p5-0.core01.mia01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.57]
21 3024 ms 3116 ms g0-2.na01.b006097-0.mia01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.250.11.22]
22 3021 ms 3112 ms NetFree.demarc.cogentco.com [38.112.0.170]


That was from about a week ago.

Either AOL customers have given up trying to reach Cogent sites (not likely) or Cogent made a deal with MFN to carry more of their traffic to/from ATDN.

1 209.126.206.1 (209.126.206.1) 0.507 ms 0.571 ms 0.618 ms
2 g1.ba21.b006588-1.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.28.125) 2.882 ms 0.677 ms 0.579 ms
3 g0-2.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.105) 1.060 ms 0.791 ms 0.366 ms
4 p4-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.77) 3.889 ms 3.214 ms 3.555 ms
5 p14-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.74) 14.532 ms 14.444 ms 14.867 ms
6 p4-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.93) 15.651 ms 15.968 ms 15.902 ms
7 p15-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.70) 15.774 ms 15.662 ms 15.596 ms
8 p6-0.tr1.sfr1.netrail.net (66.28.28.58) 16.010 ms 16.412 ms 16.005 ms
9 p4-0.pr1.SanFrancisco1.CA.us.netrail.net (205.215.12.2) 16.331 ms 16.323 ms 16.101 ms
10 level3.pr1.SanFrancisco1.CA.us.netrail.net (205.215.1.230) 25.566 ms 25.275 ms 25.018 ms
11 ae0-55.mp1.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.2.129) 25.721 ms 30.929 ms 26.182 ms
12 so-2-0-0.mp1.Washington1.Level3.net (64.159.1.86) 101.833 ms 101.716 ms 112.650 ms
13 so-7-0-0.gar1.Washington1.Level3.net (64.159.1.190) 112.497 ms 114.793 ms 116.021 ms
14 pop2-mtc-P3-0.atdn.net (66.185.143.233) 113.596 ms 115.047 ms 109.484 ms
15 ow.atdn.net (66.185.151.162) 112.002 ms 107.278 ms 105.616 ms

And thats from right now :D

Also, forgive me for being dense, but how is it that you all are looking up the ASN's to find the peer count?

Originally posted by DeathNova
Also, forgive me for being dense, but how is it that you all are looking up the ASN's to find the peer count?

The best way to do that is at www.fixedorbit.com

Originally posted by atjeu
Well here is a question - if you were a real tier 1 backbone like att or uunet or sprint etc... why would you ever want to pier with cogent?

Lets see...

* Because they have insane amounts of CONTENT HEAVY customers.

* Because YOUR customers will complain about the internet being slow if they don't. Peering is a two way street. You can eliminate the peering connection, but then that means that YOU too must take the long way around to get to cogents Content.

* Because these prices are in the industry now and the people who want cheap bandwidth (like me) will stick it out at $30/mbit and have a few congested cogent routes rather than pay twice (or more likely more) than that to another carrier, when the data still gets from Point A to Point Z in the end.

* Because people like their porno & they like it big (read: movies/multimedia). Ask any catholoic priest... everyone loves porno. And the adult webmasters love deals (well everyone loves deals too.. so that makes it even worse) usually selling out to whoever will give them the best deal.

To address your other idea.. blackballing Cogent out of the market? LOL I wish they would try...

It would take a very orchestrated play to kill off cogent via killing peering arragnemtns. The kind that would be considered illegal and wind the companies involved in lawsuits that could eliminate them from the game completely.

It sucks that the _DIRECT_ AOL routes are down. But Cogent will be beefing up the Level 3 routes to handle the traffic. That stuff doesn't just happen overnight. It usually takes a few weeks because on top of everything else.. I think the telephone companies (who are notorious for being S L O W to do installs/upgrades) are invovled.

So you think I'll give up $30/mbit just because AOL routes are currently (improving) slow? LOL Try again. And I think if the INDUSTRY ever made a play against cogent to push them out.... I think the cogent subscribers who were effected would have a major lawsuit against those companies as well.

Originally posted by atjeu
here is a company capatilizing on others misfortunes (if cogent had to pay to lay their infrastructure there prices would be the same as the rest), undercutting your business by a factor of 100,

Wrong. In the funny-money days of the stock market A LOT OF PEOPLE LOST THEIR ENTIRE LIFE SAVINGS paying for things like that infrastructure. The market as a whole deflated -- across the board worldwide. What were $100,000 routers & switches are now selling for $5000. CONSUMERS AND INVESTORS paid for that price difference. Ask anyone who bought into the networking boom -- *BOOM* mroe like. Maybe we should also be bashing the people who are now selling the network equipment "Too cheap" as well? How would you like to have paid the original MSRP (normal retail prices) for all your networking equipment? No, I didn't think you would. And if youd DID, well... that sucks. But I didn't :).

In the late 90's and 2000 a lot of people made A LOT of money. Much of this was through theft and decieving consumers and newbie investors.

The people paid for that infrastructure, and Cogent is passing the savings back that they (unwillingly) paid for, in the form of a more media-rich internet. Although they probably would have liked to have been paid a different way :P

If in the end the content providers are able to buy bandwidth 10x cheaper, they might push 8x more content thant they normally would.

Maybe you would like broadband to go away too? You seem so content with the consumer having to pay more for less - only so your own pockets can get fatter no doubt.

These price drops in the industry are in line with the DEMAND of bandwidth that broadband customers have put on the industry. I mean remember the days where a T1 would cost $1200/mo (or more).. I spose it still would in some places. But now you as a CONSUMER can get that same downstream capacity for under $50/mo. So that $50 consumer/end user should have a better price on bandwidth than the service & content providers? Yeah.. that makes sense.


But don't go making just them out to be bottom-feeding opportunists. All industries and companies are corrupt and slime these days anyway :)

Originally posted by atjeu
offering a "non-professional" quality of service, and stealing customers away from you just because its so darn cheap... and then wanting you to peer with them? no way.


Damn man. WAAAAAAAH. It's called competition.

I guess it would be better if ONLY AOL Handled Internet for the Globe right? Yes. THat would surely get us, the consumers, the best deal.

Do you feel that once you have a customer that they are yours for life? Maybe if you force them into some horrible contract. But usually I think its fair to let people shop, 1 year terms are fair. Then they can get the current 'best deal' for their money, or allow you to match or compete with the best deal they find.

Currently for me, Cogent offers that best deal and nobody is coming close to matching their prices at any level.

Would I pay twice as much for a network that will route the packets a second faster? No. The data just isn't that critical.
Maybe if I was in a time-sensitive industry like the stock market or something. I think if the consumer was given the same option on their broadband, they would go for the cheaper line.

Would you rather pay $50/mo for the level of service you get now, or $5/mo and a little more latency (because before this AOL/TW deal the cogent network was pretty damn good).
I'm pretty sure EVERYONE here would take the latency and the $5/mo broadband.



Originally posted by atjeu
think about cogent for a second - if they have zero peers - their bandwidth is useless - bandwidth is all about your peers - unless you have every end user that exists on your network, your bandwidth is only as good as your peers.

I have thought about that scenario. The "Take the money and run" days are pretty much over for big business. The people that are left are here fighting tooth and nail for marketshare to stay in business. I doubt Cogent will be folding up shop and bailing anytime soon.

But if a couple networks here and there want to try their luck and terminate peering agreements with cogent - let them. I think that most of Cogents customers (AKA price whores - myself included) will stick it out with them unless their network is UNUSEABLE and its THEIR FAULT. Keep in mind, this isnt the economy to be spending 2 to 10 times the amount of money for something if you don't absolutely have to.

Sooooo the other thing that could kill them would be if everyone dumps peering agreements with them at the same time. But I think it would be ILLEGAL if it was done in any sort of organized manner. But still, peering is a a two way street. It doen't really help you to shut down peering connections to a content heavy network. Your subscribers want stuff to look at ;)

So bring it on so I can retire early from the class action lawsuits I help start against the companies involved. If AOL/TW was involved in this speculative blackballing -- woo lookout. Payday :)


Damn what a long post.

I just thought I would put my 2cents in.

The constantt cogent bashers/doomsdayers just piss me off sometimes :)

Personally I think that they would all LOVE to use Cogent but they either got trapped into high priced multi-year term deals with their current provider, or they dont have a cogent pop in their area. Because frankly if your in this industry and DONT have a little Cogent... you cant compete against providers who DO use them without bashing cogent :)

Cogent doesn't run a public looking glass, do they?
Anyway, someone just posted a notice on NANOG, that Cogent's now routing through MFN to AOL ... he included this traceroute:

7 p15-0.core02.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.26) 31.564 ms 31.735 ms
31.036 ms
8 ge-5-2-1.pr1.dfw3.us.mfnx.net (64.124.51.169) 47.949 ms 48.001 ms
47.844 ms
9 so-3-1-0.cr1.dfw2.us.mfnx.net (64.125.31.217) 47.969 ms 47.888 ms
48.370 ms
10 aol-above.dfw2.above.net (209.249.119.230) 48.048 ms 47.887 ms 47.845
ms
11 bb2-dal-P0-0.atdn.net (66.185.146.146) 48.706 ms 48.169 ms 48.041 ms

... anyone can confirm/deny that?
i thought they wanted to do this via L3?

best regards,

Originally posted by BiGWill

... anyone can confirm/deny that?
i thought they wanted to do this via L3?

best regards,

Hmm yeah me too. I'm getting the same though:

7 p6-0.core03.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.150) 12.936 ms 12.901 ms 12.820 ms
8 ge12-0.mpr2.pao1.us.mfnx.net (64.124.11.177) 14.026 ms 13.827 ms 13.790 ms
9 so-4-1-0.mpr4.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (208.185.175.161) 14.640 ms 15.277 ms 16.074 ms
10 pos12-0.cr7.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (64.125.30.13) 16.092 ms 14.337 ms 15.166 ms
11 aol-above.sjc2.above.net (209.249.119.118) 14.190 ms 14.333 ms 14.189 ms
12 bb1-sje-P0-0.atdn.net (66.185.138.96) 14.659 ms 14.981 ms 14.635 ms
13 bb1-sun-P6-3.atdn.net (66.185.153.35) 15.288 ms 15.710 ms 15.237 ms
14 bb1-den-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.252) 40.619 ms 40.393 ms 40.118 ms
15 bb2-den-P1-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.137) 88.548 ms 88.417 ms 88.192 ms
16 bb2-kcy-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.189) 88.680 ms 88.299 ms 88.445 ms
17 bb1-kcy-P1-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.126) 89.293 ms 88.950 ms 88.171 ms
18 bb1-chi-P6-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.124) 85.316 ms 85.996 ms 85.188 ms
19 bb2-chi-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.131) 84.992 ms 85.043 ms 85.334 ms
20 bb2-vie-P10-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.215) 86.064 ms 85.228 ms 103.102 ms
21 bb2-rtc-P8-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.162) 85.475 ms 86.496 ms 85.174 ms
22 bb2-mtc-P8-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.100) 87.122 ms 86.125 ms 86.464 ms
23 pop1-mtc-P15-0.atdn.net (66.185.143.199) 86.834 ms 87.513 ms 86.879 ms
24 ow.atdn.net (66.185.143.206) 86.139 ms 86.702 ms 86.131 ms
25 172.20.148.54 (172.20.148.54) 86.540 ms 172.20.148.50 (172.20.148.50) 86.504 ms 86.687 ms
26 * * *
27 172.20.148.54 (172.20.148.54) 87.578 ms !X * 87.212 ms !X



And it looks like AOL **** on MFN's routing because of it... look at all those hops.. jeeze.

Hello


>tracert cogentco.com

Tracing route to cogentco.com [66.28.0.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

3 139 ms 161 ms 188 ms accessl1-loh-P6-3.router.aol.com [195.93.52.117]

4 144 ms 126 ms 135 ms pop4-loh-P3-0.atdn.net [66.185.146.69]
5 129 ms 134 ms 127 ms bb2-loh-P0-2.atdn.net [66.185.146.66]
6 235 ms 143 ms 134 ms pop2-loh-P1-0.atdn.net [66.185.136.243]
7 154 ms 151 ms 167 ms Level3.atdn.net [66.185.143.90]
8 145 ms 138 ms 134 ms 212.113.3.9
9 198 ms 262 ms 191 ms so-1-0-0.mp2.NewYork1.Level3.net [212.187.128.15
3]
10 212 ms 191 ms 199 ms gigabitethernet5-0.core1.NewYork1.Level3.net [64
.159.17.37]
11 251 ms 255 ms 246 ms 204.6.134.162
12 379 ms 286 ms 263 ms p5-0.br01.jfk01.atlas.psi.net [154.54.1.197]
13 260 ms 246 ms 255 ms p14-0.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.1.
21]
14 380 ms 359 ms 343 ms p4-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.10
]
15 525 ms 343 ms 295 ms p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.81
]
16 332 ms 255 ms 255 ms p15-0.core01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.2
1]
17 332 ms 274 ms 295 ms salt.cogentco.com [66.28.0.10]

Trace complete.


Same as usual for me except no 600+ pings as was last time I checked.

Originally posted by tazzy
Hello



Same as usual for me except no 600+ pings as was last time I checked.

Ah cool deal. Looks like they split up the load. I'm west coast.


Oh.. no thats AOL -> Cogent via level3.

But COGENT -> AOL uses MFN via Abovenet now I guess.

I hope it's not temporary.

Originally posted by Kazdek

And it looks like AOL **** on MFN's routing because of it... look at all those hops.. jeeze.

Don't worry, that's normal for AOL :)

what are the URL's to the williams and Yipes network?

Need to consider these as alternatives for the cheaper bandwidth

http://www.williamscommunications.com
&
http://www.yipes.com

best regards,

Thanks,

I was looking at their websites but there isnt much info on their pricing. although they both mention that you can get bandwidth in increments.

you'll have to contact them, and you'll get a costum quote ...
try to negotiate a bit ... could help to get a good price... ;))

best regards,