Results 1 to 25 of 26
Thread: Equinix Overview/Prices
-
04-12-2004, 06:56 AM #1WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Posts
- 110
Equinix Overview/Prices
I'm in the need of around 100-200mbps bandwidth at a colo facility, the problem is high connectivity is a must and thus multiple carriers become a must. No matter how great a single carrier is they're going to have some downtime, and any credit you get back from the SLA will generally be pathetic in comparison to the amount lost in business (unless you're profit margins are horrible in which case who cares).
Equinix offers multihoming from dozens of carriers (without the hassle of having to screw with BGP and getting an AS and all that crap yourself) as well as connections to direct providers such as Cox which they say will cost you much less due to the elimination of the middle man carrier, etc, etc. This of course is blind to the fact that they are themselves a middleman and are obviosly making a % of any of the bandwidth fees charged by their selected carriers (if this is not how it works and you know, don't bash, please inform). I've emailed them in request of rates but most likely will not get any actual numbers. Does anyone have any experience with Equinix and can list some price ranges for their carriers? I'm assuming the prices will be much higher than what would be considered decent deals, especially considering their emphasis on your lack of commit to bandwidth amounts.
-
04-12-2004, 07:48 AM #2Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Location
- Sunny Florida (Orlando)
- Posts
- 409
High Commit Colo
Your best bet would be to get ahold of SeverCentral in Chicago. They are at equinix and run a BGP network of InterNAP, AboveNet and private peering. Great network. Would recommend them for a BGP even though i personally dont use them because of our network in STL but for a Great BGP Network i would say ServerCentral
Webby Enterprises LLC - AS63031
Proudly Offering Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated and Colo from Sunny Central Florida
In the business since 1997!
http://www.webbytech.net
-
04-12-2004, 08:41 AM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Posts
- 3,892
peering you get through equinix direct is not going to be cheap, at least in most cases. what you should be looking for is a quality tier 2 provider which, by aggregating several tier 1s and peering connections as well as an n+1 redundant network, essentially handles your redundant connectivity for you. servercentral and internap are both good examples.
paul* Rusko Enterprises LLC - Upgrade to 100% uptime today!
* Premium NYC collocation and custom dedicated servers
call 1-877-MY-RUSKO or paul [at] rusko.us
dedicated servers, collocation, load balanced and high availability clusters
-
04-12-2004, 05:27 PM #4WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Posts
- 110
Thank you for your replies. Internap seems like the solution for me after having reviewed their site especially considering I'd prefer a colo in Seattle if possible.
If anyone could provide me with an estimate on what I should expect the price to be for a 100mbps connect or a 100mbps commit on a Gig-E line from Internap please let me know. I have bad experience with salesman (UUNET stole my soul) and I would like to have an idea of what a reasonable rate is for the type of service they provide.
-
04-12-2004, 06:20 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Louisville, Kentucky
- Posts
- 1,083
Many folks believe Internap's rates are never reasonable for the service they provide ...
Jeff at Innovative Network Concepts / 212-981-0607 x8579 / AIM: jeffsw6
Expert IP network consultation and operation at affordable rates
95th Percentile Explained Rate-Limiting on Cisco IOS switches
-
04-12-2004, 06:29 PM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Posts
- 3,892
Originally posted by HighCommit
Thank you for your replies. Internap seems like the solution for me after having reviewed their site especially considering I'd prefer a colo in Seattle if possible.
If anyone could provide me with an estimate on what I should expect the price to be for a 100mbps connect or a 100mbps commit on a Gig-E line from Internap please let me know. I have bad experience with salesman (UUNET stole my soul) and I would like to have an idea of what a reasonable rate is for the type of service they provide.
paul* Rusko Enterprises LLC - Upgrade to 100% uptime today!
* Premium NYC collocation and custom dedicated servers
call 1-877-MY-RUSKO or paul [at] rusko.us
dedicated servers, collocation, load balanced and high availability clusters
-
04-12-2004, 06:38 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
- Posts
- 1,045
I got an internap quote 5 months ago, $175/Mbit on 100Mbit commit via Gige, and $150/Mbit on 200Mbit commit. Could get them cheaper Iam sure, but that price was enough for me to laugh at the guy
-
04-12-2004, 06:42 PM #8WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Posts
- 110
Originally posted by Dilhole
I got an internap quote 5 months ago, $175/Mbit on 100Mbit commit via Gige, and $150/Mbit on 200Mbit commit. Could get them cheaper Iam sure, but that price was enough for me to laugh at the guy
-
04-12-2004, 06:51 PM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
- Posts
- 1,045
Originally posted by HighCommit
That's ridiculous, n/m Internap then =/
-
04-12-2004, 07:51 PM #10Newbie
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 15
Level (3)
I know you said you will need a blend of networks but would you ever consider just one network.
For example we have been working with Level 3 for many years now and we have customers that cannot go down for whatever reason. We have never had a problem with them going down.
If you would consider this an option you probably can save a lot of money!
If this an option let me know! We have great connections with Level 3 and Equinix.
-
04-12-2004, 08:06 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Louisville, Kentucky
- Posts
- 1,083
Was your Level(3) transit degraded or interrupted when their network suffered due to Telefonica leaking a few tens of thousands of routes to GBLX earlier this year? All Level(3) customers I know experienced some degree of degredation or failure during that event.
Jeff at Innovative Network Concepts / 212-981-0607 x8579 / AIM: jeffsw6
Expert IP network consultation and operation at affordable rates
95th Percentile Explained Rate-Limiting on Cisco IOS switches
-
04-12-2004, 08:19 PM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Kirkland, WA
- Posts
- 4,448
I'll second the vote for ServerCentral, although as a correction , they do not use InterNAP, they use Level3, UUnet, AboveNET, verio,nlayer (gblx), peer1, and some others..
InterNAP's not part of the mix, but with those 6 (especially Level3, UUnet) why would you need InterNAP?
-
04-12-2004, 08:23 PM #13Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Posts
- 502
Sorry to go a bit off topic but is gowebman a servercentral reseller? They seem to have very reasonable prices.
-
04-12-2004, 08:32 PM #14Newbie
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 15
Originally posted by jsw6
Was your Level(3) transit degraded or interrupted when their network suffered due to Telefonica leaking a few tens of thousands of routes to GBLX earlier this year? All Level(3) customers I know experienced some degree of degredation or failure during that event.
-
04-12-2004, 09:10 PM #15WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Posts
- 110
Minor interruptions are the thing i'm trying to avoid here. The 5-30 second "is my cable modem down or is it my server? dammit yahoo loads, it's my server - woop its back up" hiccups. I experienced these far too frequently (for my purposes), about 20-30 times per month with both my UUNET T-1, and bandwidth provided by Cogent to a CA datacenter.
I really don't feel I'll be able to achieve this kind of connectivity without using multiple carriers.
-
04-12-2004, 09:18 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- PA, USA
- Posts
- 5,143
Originally posted by nickn
InterNAP's not part of the mix, but with those 6 (especially Level3, UUnet) why would you need InterNAP?
You can get Internap (SurePath) sub $90/mbps for 100 Mbps commit. It is not the full blown 9 providers, but 3 providers (forgot the list, but Level3 and UUNet are included, I blieve). It's still cheaper than getting yourself the three providers and running your own BGP network.
And the full blown Internap (7-9 providers) can be purchased much cheaper than $175/mbps at 100 Mbps, believe me And if you are trying to run your own BGP network with 7-9 providers, at < GigE commit, it's probably still cheaper to get Internap.Fluid Hosting, LLC - Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure: Cloud Shared and Reseller, Cloud VPS, and Cloud Hybrid Server
-
04-12-2004, 09:28 PM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 2,780
Dont know if you guys have notice, but the Level3 network is having some issues here and there and all over the place. It just isn't the Level3 it used to be.
http://Ethr.net jay@ethr.net
West Coast AT&T / Level3 / Savvis Bandwidth, Colocation, Dedicated Server, Managed IP Service, Hardware Load Balancing Service, Transport Service, 365 Main St, SFO / 200 Paul Ave, SFO / PAIX, PAO / Market Post Tower, 55 S. Market, SJC / 11 Great Oaks, Equinix, SJC
-
04-12-2004, 09:31 PM #18Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Posts
- 3,892
Originally posted by Mfjp
Dont know if you guys have notice, but the Level3 network is having some issues here and there and all over the place. It just isn't the Level3 it used to be.
paul* Rusko Enterprises LLC - Upgrade to 100% uptime today!
* Premium NYC collocation and custom dedicated servers
call 1-877-MY-RUSKO or paul [at] rusko.us
dedicated servers, collocation, load balanced and high availability clusters
-
04-12-2004, 10:07 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
- Posts
- 1,045
I wouldnt put a T1 from uunet and a GigE feed from uunet in the same ball park. As for 5-30second hiccups, have fun running your own bgp and having one of your provider drops, sure traffic will converge to the other link but its not instant.
-
04-12-2004, 10:10 PM #20Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Kirkland, WA
- Posts
- 4,448
Originally posted by FHDave
How cheap do you think it is running and keeping BGPed network yourself?
You can get Internap (SurePath) sub $90/mbps for 100 Mbps commit. It is not the full blown 9 providers, but 3 providers (forgot the list, but Level3 and UUNet are included, I blieve). It's still cheaper than getting yourself the three providers and running your own BGP network.
And the full blown Internap (7-9 providers) can be purchased much cheaper than $175/mbps at 100 Mbps, believe me And if you are trying to run your own BGP network with 7-9 providers, at < GigE commit, it's probably still cheaper to get Internap.
I'm not even sure where this post comes from, other than you defending a company you host with...just getting overly defense I think
All I did was state that ServerCentral did not have InterNAP any longer (They only had it ingress) and they went out and got a few more providers, where they now have nearly all of the 8 providers of the InterNAP network...
InterNAP is simply great marketing and brand awareness...
-
04-12-2004, 10:26 PM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Louisville, Kentucky
- Posts
- 1,083
Originally posted by nickn
I'll second the vote for ServerCentral, although as a correction , they do not use InterNAP, they use Level3, UUnet, AboveNET, verio,nlayer (gblx), peer1, and some others..
InterNAP's not part of the mix, but with those 6 (especially Level3, UUnet) why would you need InterNAP?
It seems that the only fact you introduced in your post which is entirely correct is that Server Central has UUnet and Abovenet transit. That doesn't seem any better than the original post which you were attempting to correct; indeed the authoratitive manner of your post, combined with your high post count, is probably more misleading than the original errornous post.Jeff at Innovative Network Concepts / 212-981-0607 x8579 / AIM: jeffsw6
Expert IP network consultation and operation at affordable rates
95th Percentile Explained Rate-Limiting on Cisco IOS switches
-
04-12-2004, 10:27 PM #22Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Posts
- 502
It does seem like internap's pricing is getting out of hand. I mean sure its nice quality but for a few less ms you can cut the price by 150%
I guess people with internap do pretty well to cover their costs though - i know of atleast 2 large game server providers who use internap as their network and seem to be pretty well off.
-
04-12-2004, 11:54 PM #23THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
How do you cut prices by 150%? You get paid instead of paying? Don't believe you can reduce prices by more than 100%, but that might just be me, and even then, 100% less is free :-) But if you know of any of those that are 150% less plese tell me, I'd be interested.
Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
-
04-13-2004, 12:30 AM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Kirkland, WA
- Posts
- 4,448
Originally posted by jsw6
ServerCentral has not used Verio transit for quite some time. Indeed, they got rid of Verio transit long before they dropped Internap.
Props to ServerCentral if they were able to obtain Verio peering, again, something I wasn't aware of...they must be doing pretty well, however:
Code:[nick@arpa/ttyq9(~)%] traceroute www.verio.com traceroute to www.verio.com (192.217.194.37), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets 1 vrid-107.gw.chg.servercentral.net (64.202.114.253) 0.452 ms 0.335 ms 0.844 ms 2 j2.2540.ord.scnet.net (64.202.110.49) 0.506 ms 0.458 ms 0.346 ms 3 ge0-1-1.j1.ord.scnet.net (64.202.111.78) 0.421 ms 0.494 ms 4.470 ms 4 ge-4-3-0.r00.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net (206.223.119.12) 1.514 ms 1.789 ms 1.738 ms 5 p16-1-0-0.r01.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.77) 3.274 ms 9.250 ms 2.887 ms
To the best of my knowledge, has never used Level(3) for transit.
Check your facts. Jordan would disagree with you on the Level(3) transit.
Their connectivity to Peer1 is a peering relationship, not transit.
They list it is as transit on their site, http://www.servercentral.net/info/techspecs.php ,if it's since become settlement-free, I wasn't aware.
From ServerCentral.net
Our 100% fiber optic network is completely fault-tolerant and redundant. We currently utilize the following transit providers: AboveNet (MFN), Global Crossing, Peer1, Teleglobe, and UUNET.
Finally, I think it's hardly fair to label nlayer as "nlayer (gblx)" as nlayer has substantial peering.
There was nothing negative about that, I was only clarifying for those who might not recognize the nlayer name, compensating for the less clued. For what it's worth, ServerCentral lists it as Global Crossing, as well their sales crew refers to it as "nlayer (gblx)" I hardly think this is worth nitpicking over...
It seems that the only fact you introduced in your post which is entirely correct is that Server Central has UUnet and Abovenet transit. That doesn't seem any better than the original post which you were attempting to correct; indeed the authoratitive manner of your post, combined with your high post count, is probably more misleading than the original errornous post.Last edited by snickn; 04-13-2004 at 12:36 AM.
-
04-13-2004, 04:03 AM #25Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Louisville, Kentucky
- Posts
- 1,083
Originally posted by nickn
traceroute to www.verio.com (192.217.194.37), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets
1 vrid-107.gw.chg.servercentral.net (64.202.114.253) 0.452 ms 0.335 ms 0.844 ms
Clearly suggests Verio transit to me. I'm not going to check what they advertise, it's not worth it, I don't care that much.
Check your facts. Jordan would disagree with you on the Level(3) transit.
Code:1 hwnode2.scservers.com (64.202.100.57) 0.170 ms 0.083 ms 0.042 ms 2 ge1-0-0.j2.ord.scnet.net (64.202.110.10) 0.394 ms 0.400 ms 0.292 ms 3 345.ge-4-0-0.mpr1.ord7.us.above.net (64.124.229.146) 0.410 ms 0.397 ms 0.345 ms 4 p.xchcgil17-level3.bbnplanet.net (209.0.227.69) 0.482 ms 0.454 ms 0.364 ms 5 so-2-1-0.bbr1.Chicago1.Level3.net (209.244.8.9) 0.457 ms 0.526 ms 0.508 ms
Maybe, you should redirect these concerns to sales@servercentral.net?
There was nothing negative about that, I was only clarifying for those who might not recognize the nlayer name, compensating for the less clued. For what it's worth, ServerCentral lists it as Global Crossing, as well their sales crew refers to it as "nlayer (gblx)" I hardly think this is worth nitpicking over...
Well that's one more fact than you introduced, so I guess we're even?Last edited by XTStrike; 04-13-2004 at 01:37 PM.
Jeff at Innovative Network Concepts / 212-981-0607 x8579 / AIM: jeffsw6
Expert IP network consultation and operation at affordable rates
95th Percentile Explained Rate-Limiting on Cisco IOS switches