Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1

    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.

  2. #2
    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

  3. #3
    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

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    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

  6. #6
    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.
    internap is going to cost you an arm and a leg. expect to pay well over twice your budget (based on your request). i concur with the opinion that internap is quite often not the best value.

    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

  7. #7
    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

  8. #8
    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
    That's ridiculous, n/m Internap then =/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    1,045
    Originally posted by HighCommit
    That's ridiculous, n/m Internap then =/
    Doesnt hurt to call them up. Get a quote just to see what it is in your area as people say it varies on location.

  10. #10

    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.

  11. #11
    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

  12. #12
    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?
    Nick Nelson
    Sr. Director & GM, VAS
    Demand Media
    425.298.2282 nn@demandmedia.com

  13. #13
    Sorry to go a bit off topic but is gowebman a servercentral reseller? They seem to have very reasonable prices.

  14. #14
    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.
    My Customers may have had minor interruptions but never any downtime at that point in time! But yes I know there were others that were down at that point in time!

  15. #15
    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.

  16. #16
    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?
    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.
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure: Cloud Shared and Reseller, Cloud VPS, and Cloud Hybrid Server

  17. #17
    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

  18. #18
    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.
    agreed.

    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

  19. #19
    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.

  20. #20
    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.
    Uh..I know the costs of InterNAP...Remember my past employer?

    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...
    Nick Nelson
    Sr. Director & GM, VAS
    Demand Media
    425.298.2282 nn@demandmedia.com

  21. #21
    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?
    ServerCentral has not used Verio transit for quite some time. Indeed, they got rid of Verio transit long before they dropped Internap. To the best of my knowledge, has never used Level(3) for transit. Their connectivity to Peer1 is a peering relationship, not transit. Finally, I think it's hardly fair to label nlayer as "nlayer (gblx)" as nlayer has substantial peering.

    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

  22. #22
    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.

  23. #23
    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

  24. #24
    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
    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.

    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.
    Maybe, you should redirect these concerns to sales@servercentral.net?

    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.
    Well that's one more fact than you introduced, so I guess we're even?
    Last edited by snickn; 04-13-2004 at 12:36 AM.

  25. #25
    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
    As you have nothing but traceroute and marketing material to draw your conclusions from, I can understand why you are wrong. Fortunately, I am an SC transit customer with BGP sessions; so I have access to more data than you.

    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.
    ServerCentral reaches Verio via webusenet transit. While they have tried to get Verio peering, it seems that we were both incorrect on this point. You don't see that in the traceroute, as ServerCentral uses their hostname on the relavent ibis7-facing interface; however, a quick BGP inquiry shows me an as-path. I do apologize to the readers for my earlier statement that SC has Verio peering. To clarify, they have no direct connectivity to Verio.

    Check your facts. Jordan would disagree with you on the Level(3) transit.
    I am aware that Server Central intends to purchase Level(3) transit; however, I see zero routes from them matching aspath-regex "23352 3356 .*". Additionally, route-views has no routes matching ".* 3356 23352$". Finally, queries to lookingglass.level3.net show that Level(3) reaches ServerCentral via (UUnet) These are crystal clear indicators that they aren't using Level(3) transit yet. But since you put more faith in what you read on a web site than in actual data, let's look at the output of their www traceroute tool for www.level3.net. What do you know, they use Abovenet to reach Level(3).
    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?
    I would ask that you kindly check your facts before claiming that my statements are incorrect. I do my research before making authoratitive posts on WHT. I care about webmasters having accurate information upon which to base their decisions, and I don't want to be reputed as someone who posts incorrect information and represents it as authoratitive fact; for example, stating that a traceroute is an indication of a transit relationship.

    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...
    Perhaps you should be more clear. WHT readers may not have the resources to check these facts for themselves, but they can certainly understand the difference between a reseller and someone who operates a nation-wide oc48 backbone with several tens-of-thousands of routes learnt via direct peering relationships, who is using GBLX to reach folks who are not customers of their peers.

    Well that's one more fact than you introduced, so I guess we're even?
    All the "facts" you introduced were intended to correct a previous post, and all your "facts" were wrong, save the "nlayer (gblx)" statement, which is hardly precise. I think you should thank me for providing you with such a detailed reply referencing authoratitive sources. My goal when posting on WHT is to provide detailed, accurate technical information to the inquiries I read.
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •