COMMENTS PLEASE: Steadfast Servers vs Coloquest Pure Level(3) bandwidth?
Here's the scoop: I need an ultra-reliable, 0% packet loss high quality provider of bandwidth (small amounts).
Because I am doing VoIP, I particularly like Level(3) because I find the traceroutes tend to stay on their network both ingress and egress. Some of my customers are on cheap bandwidth, so we want the packet off of them and onto high quality as much as possible.
Once the VoIP comes to me, most of it will go to Peer1 Los Angeles (Savvis transit) and some to NAC in New Jersey.
I'm trying to figure out where
1) Is Level(3) pure better than Level(3) plus Savvis?
2) Is Coloquest/Gigeservers (who said they would give me 100% L3 not on their IRC part of the network) oversold? I mean, how can they give Level(3) for so cheap?
3) If I chose Steadfast, how likely is it that the data will go over Savvis. I hav done many traces, and none ever went over Savvis. Always Level(3) . . .maybe because Level(3) is so big that everyone peers with them and they have lots of peering points.
Comments from all your experts would be SOOOOO much appreciated!
Originally posted by Genesis5
Honestly, if you can pick up pure Savvis, instead of pure Level(3), Id do that. [/B]
I would have to respectfully disagree here. If you can get a BGP mix of L3 and Savvis from Karl, go with that. Their blend will give you the best routes from point A to B and in cases where outgoing routes are funky, Karl has been known to be willing to change that and Jeff at reflected networks is a great net eng who knows what he is doing. In short, bgp of L3 and Savvis will not fail.
Just a quesiton though, why not pull traffic from Peer1 all the way through to say Equinix Secacus, Newark or Telehouse.