Hello, I would like some feedback from the community. I have just occupied space in the chicago technology information exchange or something along those lines. If you are local in chicago the address is 247 S state. This building is supposed to be the most tech advanced building in the city now because the city pumped millions into it. I am currently turning my space into a small to medium size datacenter for colo and dedicated service since my first business was hardware, my minimun dedicated server boxes are going to be nothing less than P4's. My main question is since this comunity has a great influence on my reputation in the future, what carriers would you like to see in this center? It is going 3000 square feet and most all the big name isp's are in the building. i will have two seperate networks, one for my private streaming business and one for the colo and dedicated servers.
Just one more question, would anyone suggest a presale of dedicated servers and colo like 10% off the first 2 months if you commit 2 weeks before we officially open for business? I am hoping to stay competative depending on the kind of pricing i get for the isp's so anywhere from $175 to $250 dollers for RELIABLE 10 meg unmetered. I looking for a perfect reputiation so i will give my word that i will not oversell bandwidth because i was a long time victim of that which is why i trying to provide affordable and reliable unmetered bandwidth.
Sorry for the long post, I need 2 isp's to start so let me know which are the fav's
Would you sell some raw space and power? PM me if you are going to
As with preselling dedicated and colo, they usually won't generate much sales, and it would damage you when you try to ironed out things when you try to start it up.
I dont' know what your cost are, but selling a 10 Meg Unmetered at $175-$250 maybe a bit too low unless you have multi-gig commitments with carrier and are capable of getting quality transit from them at $20/meg or so. But by then, you'll need complex/expensive routers/network infrastructure and you'll find that you're not profiting. Just to let you know, the current market can sustain $350 for 10 Meg Unmetered servers.
http://Ethr.net[email protected] 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
the site has air already but i dont want to rely on it. It was built in some areas of the building to have facilties like this. So things like fire supression and power is in this area of the building that i am in. I am installing an additional cooling unit. All of our dedicated servers will be in cooled rack cab's as well
for anyone fallowing the thread here, we have choose a gig line from cogentco to start use off. Sorry no BGP as of yet. We are in the process of getting our ip's from arin. Then we will add one more provider.
Do many of you prefer rack space or tower or both for colo?
Originally posted by chicagodata
you have to purchase them in order for bgp to take place, the ip's have to be yours so you can setup the inbound routing.
At a glance, it seems that you or your staff lack the expertiese necessary to make your venture successful. You are absolutely incorrect about any requirement that you have provider-independent space to be a BGP speaking network; and indeed, being a multi-homed, BGP-speaker makes it substantially easier for a small network to obtain provider-independent space from the ARIN.
Sorry about that jeff, I not new to networking but i am new to bgp. I misexplained what we were in the process of doing. I am learning about bgp from our head network tech who does have the experience in this area. He has maintained other large networks in other facilities. Please excuse my ignorance
Originally posted by Mfjp
Also, bad move to get Cogent. That just scares people away.
Mjfp's carefully worded statement is unfortunately correct. While the Cogent network and their products are good, especially in a BGP-speaking network; it will be a marketing challenge for you. Anyone who has ever searched for Cogent on WHT and read a few threads will find that painfully obvious.
That said, I think you'll be pleased with Cogent service.
Well it will probably be ready in about two weeks because i have personal business obligations that need to be running in there by that time. I will post the website name soon. We are a Web app developer to so we are finishing the help desk and things like that.
That is the idea but the security is not used to 24/hr access just straight lock down so they said as long as someone comes to get the guest after hours at the desk we will be fine. So with a phone call first from the guest 24/hr should no problem
One question... Are you looking for any staff? To do anything... i mean anything just wondering.. because i'm looking for a job something to do with computers.. and networks... i'm not looking for pay.. Just Experiance for future job's. Thanks
Originally posted by music Cogent works well in chicago, FDC has had it for years and it has been fine.
So can we take a tour when you open?
FDC has been the posterchild of whats wrong with Cogent on WHT last I'd checked (well, when you combine suspected oversubscription with Cogent, etc.). Does getting 100% shutdown by Cogent in such a manner that their entire DC went down qualify as "fine"?
Originally posted by music Cogent has made improvements in the past 2 years since the FDC thing and FDC and Cogent settled the problems of the past.
But looking at the stock (cio) I think it does not look so good back down to 0.64 cents.
Yes, but they've been anything but "fine" as you'd been painting them with FDC. Cogent hasn't been making their goals for a long time financially, they've lost peers due to saturation, etc. The signs aren't good to say the least.
In my book, they're definatly not a "winning" carrier to say the least.
Originally posted by porcupine
they've lost peers due to saturation, etc. The signs aren't good to say the least.
Cogent's engineering staff has every reason to upgrade peers long before they become congested, and I'm certain they make every effort to do so. If the peers refuse to co-operate, that's a problem for the customers of both Cogent and the peer in question. Cogent is the victim in these situations.
Originally posted by jsw6 Cogent's engineering staff has every reason to upgrade peers long before they become congested, and I'm certain they make every effort to do so. If the peers refuse to co-operate, that's a problem for the customers of both Cogent and the peer in question. Cogent is the victim in these situations.
My arguement wasn't whether or not Cogent was being victimized. It makes you ask the question sooner or later though, why would someone turn down, or refuse to upgrade a peering session in the gigabit range, why doesen't this happen to other companies regularly, etc.
If you look back on their history, my point stands quite well for anyone whose followed Cogent in any depth over the past 3 years.
It does happen to other companies regularly. Settlement-free peering is a tough game played by egotistical people at companies that directly compete with one another. Do you honestly believe that Cogent can't afford interface cards, cross-connects, or circuits to upgrade peering capacity to crucial networks; and that instead of that, they prefer to purchase paid transit?
As an example to proove Jeff's point, AT&T has been VERY picky lately as to who they will extend peering relationships with. I believe quite a few companies were turned down for more peering, not just Cogent.
Originally posted by jsw6 It does happen to other companies regularly. Settlement-free peering is a tough game played by egotistical people at companies that directly compete with one another. Do you honestly believe that Cogent can't afford interface cards, cross-connects, or circuits to upgrade peering capacity to crucial networks; and that instead of that, they prefer to purchase paid transit?
I was under the impression that Cogent could not sustain the appropriate push:pull ratios set out in the contract, and thus lost their peering in most cases. Looking over their financial numbers though, you might argue that side too . Needless to say, I dont think I'm egotistical, yet we've had no problem establishing peering sessions with an array of companies (almost three dozen) over the TorIX fabric without any such issues (and yes, I'm well aware of the apples to oranges scale we're talking here).