1. Sprint (because they have one of the best engineering groups)
2. AT&T (because they are really scared that Comcast is going to be gone)
4. AboveNet (because something has to be said about desperate need of revenues)
6. Time Warner
www.zubrcom.net | Tel: 1-877-982-7266 / 1-267-298-3232 | [email protected][email protected]
Hosting, VPS, Servers, Unmetered 10, 100 and Gigabit servers - Colocation - Engineering services
"Elegant solutions to complex problems in the Internet-centric world"
this is more of a question than a comment - but abovenet seems to vary in latency. I can go on them through the peer1 network and have nice speeds from TX to NY, or i can try to ping managed.com and do horrible (over 100 from new england).
Originally posted by Simpli-Erica Pinging Managed.com has no relevancy whatsoever to AboveNet. Managed has been overloading their AboveNet lines since day 1. Their customers abuse the bandwidth like none other, too.
Managed.com's uptime, network stability, etc. is a reflection on their network engineering skills (or lack thereof.)
Tell us how you really feel.
PS - How are those RAQs treating you guys?
Sprint, AT&T and Level(3) in my book. Not enough experience to pick between the rest.
BeDifferentSolutions | "For when Indian-based solutions just won't do."
*We hire, train and manage extremely skilled technical support employees for your business*
US and European Based Representatives | Dedicated and Semi-Dedicated Options | Level 1/2/3 Skillsets
Expertise Since 1999 |www.bedifferentsolutions.com|[email protected]
AT&T are peering nazis. Comcast probably won't go away anytime soon, because they are locked into long-term, exclusive transit agreements with AT&T that forbid them to so much as peer with other commercial IP networks, let alone buy transit with them. If you don't believe me, ask the regulators in King County, Washington. They are in a battle with Comcast because Comcast is required under their cable franchise agreement with King County to peer with anyone who requests peering at the Seattle IX; yet Comcast has deliberately ignored all peering requests except one from King County itself, and one from an educational institution that peers on the SIX fabric.
How does this affect performance for AT&T customers? Cogent has been requesting additional peering capacity from AT&T for literially years without receiving same. AT&T's attempts to force other carriers to become AT&T customers by refusing to provide adaquate peering has a negative impact on performance for existing AT&T customers. This is not an equitable way to treat networks who are your settlement-free peers, and is not in the best interest of the Internet as a whole. Whether or not it is in the best financial interest of AT&T is unclear, as anyone who is aware of the various arguments behind open and selective peering philosophies already knows.
Williams are also peering nazis, who depeered a bunch of folks unilaterially and with no notice recently. One of these depeered networks was a respected WHT ISP who WCG had a contractual agreement to peer with as long as that same ISP was also a WCG customer. WCG violated such agreement and depeered them with 5 minutes notice.
Williams engineering staff are also clueless. They recently had a huge outage affecting POPs across the country because someone utilized a duplicate OSPF router-id on their backbone. It took them four hours to figure this out, and they lied to customers and said it was a "CEF issue." When asked for their Cisco TAC case number, WCG "tier 2 engineers", on a conference call with many upset WCG customers, disconnected all customers from the conference bridge.
Yep, with that said, you would want ATT transit. ATT is likely they'll do this more and more now.
As with Above.net, they're having lactency issues, at least in comparison to Global Crossing. There was a thread a few days ago on traces that compares GBLX and Above.net, Above.net was having trouble getting their packets across the country. On most occasions, they lag behind Gblx by 10 to 20ms. On the West coast, they also got issue with ATT as well <-- it looks like ATT is making it hard for them as well.