Results 1 to 31 of 31
  1. #1

    * AT&T - Savis in Chicago HELP!!!!

    Hello,

    Anybody else experiencing loss and bad latency to AT&T and Savis in Chicago. We currently have 8+ boxes with Steadfastnetworks in Chicago and we are loosing 2-3 clients a day because network issues. This has been going on now for over 5 days. We have contacted Steafastnetworks and they advise that it is AT&T and not Savis but on our traceroutes and that of over 20 clients its always the Savis hop that gives them problems. They inturn advise there is nothing that they can do as it is AT&Tís fault and they cant or wont be able to fix it and they are notorious for being slow to address these issues.

    If anybody has any similar problem please let me know. We were extremely satisfied with Steadfastnetworks until recently and it seems their service and networks are seriously becoming suspect. They are not willing to help us in this matter and that is why I have come here in a last ditch effort to try and get some help.

    Regards.

    test ip:
    205.218.67.196
    Last edited by Call2Arms; 05-15-2005 at 10:28 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    296
    I did a few trace routes from 3 different places in the country they all went through saavis to get to steadfast and there were no issues at all. Could you post one of your problem trace routes?

  3. #3
    www.hd-gaming.com/ss.bmp
    www.hd-gaming.com/tracert.jpg


    Tracing route to 205.218.67.196 over a maximum of 30 hops
    1 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms 10.7.64.1
    2 9 ms 11 ms 7 ms 12-220-4-81.client.insightBB.com [12.220.4.81]
    3 14 ms 17 ms 15 ms 12-220-1-26.client.insightBB.com [12.220.1.26]
    4 18 ms 18 ms 16 ms 12-220-0-10.client.insightBB.com [12.220.0.10]
    5 17 ms 23 ms 25 ms tbr2-p011801.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.62]
    6 16 ms 18 ms 17 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37]
    7 64 ms 55 ms 41 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    8 33 ms 24 ms 49 ms bpr2-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175
    .10.98]
    9 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms aer1-po20.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.1
    37]
    10 22 ms 21 ms 50 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [20
    8.174.226.26]
    11 22 ms 18 ms 15 ms 63.208.72.118
    12 20 ms 17 ms 53 ms 205.218.67.196
    Trace complete.

    Tracing route to 205.218.67.196 over a maximum of 30 hops
    1 11 ms 8 ms 11 ms 10.7.64.1
    2 9 ms 8 ms 9 ms 12-220-4-81.client.insightBB.com [12.220.4.81]
    3 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms 12-220-1-26.client.insightBB.com [12.220.1.26]
    4 13 ms 14 ms 15 ms 12-220-0-10.client.insightBB.com [12.220.0.10]
    5 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms tbr2-p011801.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.62]
    6 22 ms 21 ms 19 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37]
    7 40 ms 59 ms 49 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    8 51 ms 17 ms 54 ms bpr2-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175
    .10.98]
    9 17 ms 19 ms 18 ms aer1-po20.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.1
    37]
    10 15 ms 19 ms 51 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [20
    8.174.226.26]
    11 15 ms 15 ms 18 ms 63.208.72.118
    12 32 ms 49 ms 19 ms 205.218.67.196
    Trace complete.


    Tracing route to 205.218.67.196 over a maximum of 30 hops
    1 50 ms 25 ms 6 ms 10.67.0.1
    2 11 ms 8 ms 7 ms 172.30.28.81
    3 18 ms 9 ms 25 ms 12.127.141.61
    4 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms gbr2-p80.phmaz.ip.att.net [12.123.142.26]
    5 29 ms 30 ms 37 ms tbr2-p013702.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.10.85]
    6 28 ms 28 ms 27 ms ggr2-p390.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.17.85]
    7 38 ms 46 ms 30 ms att-gw.dfw.level3.net [192.205.32.114]
    8 28 ms 29 ms 28 ms so-1-2-0.bbr1.Dallas1.Level3.net [209.244.15.161
    ]
    9 59 ms 60 ms 59 ms as-2-0.bbr1.Chicago1.Level3.net [64.159.4.225]
    10 59 ms 80 ms 57 ms ge-6-1.ipcolo2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.68.101.73]
    11 73 ms 58 ms 72 ms 4.79.66.18
    12 58 ms 59 ms 60 ms 63.208.72.122
    13 77 ms 76 ms 72 ms 205.218.67.196
    Trace complete.


    Tracing route to 205.218.67.196 over a maximum of 30 hops

    1 50 ms 25 ms 6 ms 10.67.0.1
    2 11 ms 8 ms 7 ms 172.30.28.81
    3 18 ms 9 ms 25 ms 12.127.141.61
    4 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms gbr2-p80.phmaz.ip.att.net [12.123.142.26]
    5 29 ms 30 ms 37 ms tbr2-p013702.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.10.85]
    6 28 ms 28 ms 27 ms ggr2-p390.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.17.85]
    7 38 ms 46 ms 30 ms att-gw.dfw.level3.net [192.205.32.114]
    8 28 ms 29 ms 28 ms so-1-2-0.bbr1.Dallas1.Level3.net [209.244.15.161
    ]
    9 59 ms 60 ms 59 ms as-2-0.bbr1.Chicago1.Level3.net [64.159.4.225]
    10 59 ms 80 ms 57 ms ge-6-1.ipcolo2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.68.101.73]
    11 73 ms 58 ms 72 ms 4.79.66.18
    12 58 ms 59 ms 60 ms 63.208.72.122
    13 77 ms 76 ms 72 ms 205.218.67.196
    Trace complete.


    Tracing route to 205.138.196.76 over a maximum of 30 hops
    1 <10 ms 16 ms 15 ms 10.107.48.1
    2 <10 ms 16 ms <10 ms fe-2-5-ur01.vanburen.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.213]
    3 <10 ms 31 ms <10 ms srp-1-0-ar01.taylor.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.3]
    4 <10 ms 15 ms 16 ms 12.119.243.105
    5 <10 ms 16 ms 31 ms gbr2-p30.dtrmi.ip.att.net [12.123.139.34]
    6 <10 ms 15 ms 16 ms tbr2-p012601.dtrmi.ip.att.net [12.122.12.181]
    7 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms tbr2-cl1.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.10.134]
    8 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37]
    9 15 ms 32 ms 31 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    10 32 ms 31 ms 94 ms dcr2-so-5-0-0.Chicago.savvis.net [204.70.192.46]
    11 109 ms 16 ms 31 ms bpr1-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.10.238]
    12 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms aer1-po10.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.133]
    13 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.22
    14 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 63.208.72.102
    15 16 ms 31 ms 31 ms 205.138.196.76
    Trace complete.



    Tracing route to 205.218.67.196 over a maximum of 30 hops
    1 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms 10.7.64.1
    2 9 ms 11 ms 7 ms 12-220-4-81.client.insightBB.com [12.220.4.81]
    3 14 ms 17 ms 15 ms 12-220-1-26.client.insightBB.com [12.220.1.26]
    4 18 ms 18 ms 16 ms 12-220-0-10.client.insightBB.com [12.220.0.10]
    5 17 ms 23 ms 25 ms tbr2-p011801.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.62]
    6 16 ms 18 ms 17 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37]
    7 64 ms 55 ms 41 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    8 33 ms 24 ms 49 ms bpr2-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.10.98]
    9 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms aer1-po20.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.137]
    10 22 ms 21 ms 50 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.226.26]
    22 ms 18 ms 15 ms 63.208.72.118
    20 ms 17 ms 53 ms 205.218.67.196
    Trace complete.



    Tracing route to 205.218.67.196 over a maximum of 30 hops
    1 11 ms 8 ms 11 ms 10.7.64.1
    2 9 ms 8 ms 9 ms 12-220-4-81.client.insightBB.com [12.220.4.81]
    3 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms 12-220-1-26.client.insightBB.com [12.220.1.26]
    4 13 ms 14 ms 15 ms 12-220-0-10.client.insightBB.com [12.220.0.10]
    5 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms tbr2-p011801.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.62]
    6 22 ms 21 ms 19 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37]
    7 40 ms 59 ms 49 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    8 51 ms 17 ms 54 ms bpr2-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.10.98]
    9 17 ms 19 ms 18 ms aer1-po20.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.137]
    10 15 ms 19 ms 51 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [20
    8.174.226.26]
    15 ms 15 ms 18 ms 63.208.72.118
    12 32 ms 49 ms 19 ms 205.218.67.196


    Tracing route to 205.218.66.95 over a maximum of 30 hops
    1 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms c-66-176-177-190.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [66.176.177.190]
    2 11 ms 11 ms 17 ms 10.246.212.1
    3 12 ms 14 ms 12 ms ur01.miramar.fl.pompano.comcast.net [66.176.2.73]
    4 14 ms 12 ms 14 ms 66.176.1.249
    5 16 ms 17 ms 18 ms 66.176.1.253
    6 17 ms 20 ms 18 ms 12.119.94.21
    7 23 ms 18 ms 19 ms gbr4-p100.ormfl.ip.att.net [12.123.218.66]
    8 30 ms 29 ms 37 ms 12.122.1.49
    9 31 ms 33 ms 29 ms ggr1-p340.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.30]
    10 30 ms 46 ms 37 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118]
    11 28 ms 54 ms 49 ms 204.70.192.54
    12 46 ms 66 ms 74 ms dcr1-so-0-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [204.70.192.26]
    13 80 ms 65 ms 63 ms dcr2-so-1-2-0.Chicago.savvis.net [204.70.192.30]
    14 95 ms 65 ms 65 ms bpr1-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.10.238]
    15 65 ms 63 ms 64 ms aer1-po10.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.133]
    16 63 ms 66 ms 63 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.226.26]
    17 63 ms 63 ms 66 ms 205.218.66.95 Trace complete.



    Tracing route to 205.218.66.95 over a maximum of 30 hops
    1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms launchmodem [192.168.1.254]
    2 16 ms 16 ms 24 ms 65.14.252.16
    3 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 65.14.254.201
    4 16 ms 15 ms 17 ms 205.152.110.81
    5 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 65.83.237.136
    6 17 ms 18 ms 17 ms axr01mia-0-3-1.bellsouth.net [65.83.236.59]
    7 21 ms 17 ms 18 ms pxr00mia-3-0-0.bellsouth.net [65.83.236.22]
    8 33 ms 33 ms 32 ms so-0-1-0-0.gar1.Miami1.Level3.net [65.57.174.5]
    9 32 ms 35 ms 37 ms so-7-0-0.mp2.Miami1.Level3.net [4.68.112.45]
    10 48 ms 49 ms 58 ms as-1-0.bbr2.Chicago1.Level3.net [64.159.3.154]
    11 58 ms 59 ms 59 ms ge-1-1.ipcolo2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.68.101.105
    ]
    12 50 ms 49 ms 49 ms 4.79.66.18
    13 60 ms 61 ms 61 ms 63.208.72.122
    14 61 ms 60 ms 60 ms 205.218.66.95
    Trace complete.
    Last edited by Call2Arms; 05-15-2005 at 11:07 PM.

  4. #4
    Ive had traces running for the past few days, as I am looking at getting a server there. I havent seen any issues. I added your IP to my trace list, and i see 10% loss for about 3 seconds, every 2 or 3 minutes. But this doest happen to any of the other boxes that I am monitoring at steadfast.

  5. #5
    Where is the loss on that ip for you?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,556
    Tracing route to 205.218.67.196 over a maximum of 30 hops

    1 5 ms 5 ms 4 ms 10.67.0.1
    2 17 ms 5 ms 4 ms kmsdca1-rtr1-ge2-3.san.rr.com [24.25.192.146]
    3 6 ms 4 ms 5 ms WCSDCA1-GSR1-SRP0.san.rr.com [24.25.196.1]
    4 6 ms 4 ms 7 ms WCSDCA1-GSR3-SRP0.san.rr.com [24.25.196.2]
    5 8 ms 59 ms 8 ms so-0-0-0-0.gar1.SanDiego1.Level3.net [209.0.8.1]

    6 9 ms 9 ms 24 ms so-7-0-0.mp2.SanDiego1.Level3.net [4.68.113.69]

    7 47 ms 49 ms 49 ms ae-0-0.bbr2.Chicago1.Level3.net [64.159.1.34]
    8 49 ms 48 ms 47 ms ge-6-2.ipcolo2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.68.101.137
    ]
    9 48 ms 48 ms 47 ms 4.79.66.18
    10 48 ms 47 ms 48 ms 63.208.72.122
    11 49 ms 48 ms 46 ms 205.218.67.196

    Trace complete.

    Ping statistics for 205.218.67.196:
    Packets: Sent = 91, Received = 90, Lost = 1 (1% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 459ms, Average = 61ms




    %traceroute 205.218.67.196
    traceroute to 205.218.67.196 (205.218.67.196), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
    1 204.11.96.97.cpchosting.net (204.11.96.97) 0.269 ms 0.257 ms 0.228 ms
    2 g0-2.na01.b000326-0.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.112.28.9) 0.619 ms 0.657
    ms 0.511 ms
    3 g1-2.core01.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.153) 1.360 ms 1.525 ms 1.11
    2 ms
    4 p15-0.core02.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.26) 1.512 ms 1.678 ms 1.40
    7 ms
    5 p15-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.38) 22.272 ms 22.302 ms 22
    .174 ms
    6 free (66.28.4.182) 212.582 ms 42.441 ms 203.831 ms
    7 p10-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.149) 22.477 ms 22.131 ms
    30.370 ms
    8 p15-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.62) 21.979 ms 21.962 ms 22
    .454 ms
    9 p15-0.core01.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.242) 22.118 ms 22.020 ms
    22.164 ms
    10 savvis.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.246) 22.127 ms 22.121 ms 21.87
    7 ms
    11 steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net (208.174.226.26) 21.981 ms 22
    .131 ms 22.177 ms
    12 63.208.72.118 (63.208.72.118) 22.556 ms 22.306 ms 22.460 ms
    13 205.218.67.196 (205.218.67.196) 22.272 ms 22.007 ms 22.028 ms
    %



    --- 205.218.67.196 ping statistics ---
    46 packets transmitted, 46 packets received, 0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 21.873/22.360/32.404/1.510 ms
    James Lumby

  7. #7
    Originally posted by Call2Arms
    Where is the loss on that ip for you?
    Heres a 10 minute snapshot, i just did for you. Your server is the 2nd graph
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2ndsever.jpg  

  8. I think he asked where on your traceroute were you seeing the loss. That isn't showing Savvis, it doesn't show what transit you are using to reach them. Level3 is not affected at all. Only Savvis.

    Tracing route to 205.218.67.196 over a maximum of 30 hops

    1 <10 ms 15 ms <10 ms 10.107.48.1
    2 <10 ms 15 ms <10 ms fe-2-5-ur01.vanburen.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.213]
    3 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms srp-1-0-ar01.pontiac.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.2]
    4 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms 12.118.104.41
    5 31 ms 16 ms 15 ms tbr2-p011801.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.62]
    6 15 ms 16 ms 31 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37]
    7 16 ms 15 ms 32 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    8 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms bpr2-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.10.98]
    9 93 ms 235 ms 234 ms aer1-po20.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.137]
    10 15 ms 32 ms 15 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.226.26]
    11 15 ms 16 ms 31 ms 63.208.72.118
    12 15 ms 16 ms 31 ms 205.218.67.196

    Trace complete.

    Tracing route to 63.208.72.118 over a maximum of 30 hops

    1 <10 ms 16 ms <10 ms 10.107.48.1
    2 16 ms <10 ms 16 ms fe-2-5-ur01.vanburen.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.213]
    3 16 ms <10 ms 15 ms srp-1-0-ar01.taylor.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.3]
    4 16 ms <10 ms 16 ms 12.118.112.13
    5 16 ms 15 ms <10 ms tbr2-p012401.dtrmi.ip.att.net [12.123.139.57]
    6 31 ms 16 ms 16 ms tbr2-cl1.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.10.134]
    7 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37]
    8 31 ms 16 ms 16 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    9 16 ms 31 ms 15 ms bpr2-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.10.98]
    10 62 ms 219 ms 63 ms aer1-po20.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.137]
    11 31 ms 16 ms 16 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.226.26]
    12 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 63.208.72.118

    Trace complete.

    Tracing route to steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.226.26]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 16 ms <10 ms 16 ms 10.107.48.1
    2 16 ms <10 ms 15 ms fe-2-5-ur01.vanburen.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.213]
    3 15 ms <10 ms 16 ms srp-1-0-ar01.pontiac.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.2]
    4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 12.118.239.41
    5 16 ms 31 ms 16 ms tbr2-p012301.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.13]
    6 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37]
    7 31 ms 15 ms 32 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    8 32 ms 15 ms * bpr2-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.10.98]
    9 31 ms 16 ms 15 ms aer1-po20.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.137]
    10 31 ms 15 ms 16 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.226.26]

    Trace complete.

    Tracing route to web1.nozonenet.com [205.218.64.7]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 16 ms <10 ms 16 ms 10.107.48.1
    2 16 ms <10 ms 15 ms fe-2-5-ur01.vanburen.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.213]
    3 15 ms 16 ms <10 ms srp-1-0-ar01.pontiac.mi.mich.comcast.net [68.87.62.2]
    4 16 ms 31 ms 15 ms 12.118.104.49
    5 15 ms 16 ms 31 ms tbr1-p011801.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.58]
    6 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms ggr2-p300.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.33]
    7 16 ms 47 ms 62 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
    8 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms bpr2-so-0-0-0.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.10.98]
    9 109 ms 219 ms 234 ms aer1-po20.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.175.9.137]
    10 31 ms 16 ms 15 ms steadfast-networks.ChicagoEquinix.savvis.net [208.174.226.26]
    11 15 ms 16 ms 31 ms web1.nozonenet.com [205.218.64.7]

    Trace complete.
    Last edited by [email protected]; 05-15-2005 at 11:43 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    The only issues that appear to be occuring are when data is passed through the Savvis/AT&T peering point in Chicago, no other Savvis/AT&T peering point. We route AT&T through Savvis as the Level(3)/Savvis peering point in Chicago has been congested for months. We have been working with Savvis regarding this issue. I would like to not though that from our end we are only seeing intermittent ping spikes, not actual packet loss, etc.

    To me this appears to be AT&T's continued policy to congest their peering points and basically forcing people to buy transit from them, or from someone who buys transit from them, to get to their large end-user base. We have been going through methods of resolving this issue over the weekend. We hope Savvis can clear it out, but we will soon have plans in place to resolve the issue through other means as well.
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    296
    It really looks like Savvis itself is ok, if anything I'd bet it is AT&T's peering to Savvis that is messed up. It also wouldn't surprise me if that takes awhile to get fixed with AT&T falling apart and being bought by SBC and all.

  11. So I ask the question then...if most of your clients seem to get to Steadfast through ATT...what would you do when they start leaving you for a provider not having peering issues with ATT ?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    296
    If you know all your clients will be using AT&T it's probably a good idea to find a provider with a direct link to AT&T.

  13. #13
    Well weve already lost over 14 clients at our Chi location. Over 20 more advises that they will be leaving us at the end of the month. All these cancelations directly related to the AT&T - SAVIS issue. Can you say nightmare? IF you have non Savis Dedicated in CHI and can have 8 boxes up for us at the end of this month, pm me.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    Originally posted by Call2Arms
    Well weve already lost over 14 clients at our Chi location. Over 20 more advises that they will be leaving us at the end of the month. All these cancelations directly related to the AT&T - SAVIS issue. Can you say nightmare? IF you have non Savis Dedicated in CHI and can have 8 boxes up for us at the end of this month, pm me.
    I would recommend non-L3 as well, since that peering point is congested as well and non-Peer1, as they use Savvis to get to AT&T, and non-BtN as they also use Savvis to get to AT&T.
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    825
    Isn't AT&T SBC now? And I always heard SAV was crappy. Out of all the quality transit in Chicago, why would one choose those two? I could understand, maybe if it the market wasn't as dense, and maybe in a different city but not in Chicago. Even FDC uses at least Cogent.
    Devon Dunham (Owner, Sharpnet/DDoS Host)
    Advanced DDoS Mitigation and Server Management Solutions

    Protecting your online infrastructure.

    Est. 1998.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    Originally posted by DD-SNC
    Isn't AT&T SBC now? And I always heard SAV was crappy. Out of all the quality transit in Chicago, why would one choose those two? I could understand, maybe if it the market wasn't as dense, and maybe in a different city but not in Chicago. Even FDC uses at least Cogent.
    First of all, SBC reached an agreement with AT&T for purchase. They are not yet the same company let alone on the same network. They still trade independantly on the stock market, and I am not aware of when the deal is set to be finalized. I'm hoping that once the networks are finally merged these types of issues never happen again.

    I'm assuming you meant to say you had heard Savvis was crappy. Well, that would be incorrect, LayeredTech gets rave reviews and utilizes pure Savvis connectivity and I am sure there are other examples as well. We have done extensive research and decided to utilize Savvis because of their high levels of performance. From what I can tell, they are the top performing tier 1 carrier, across the board. I would hardly say a single peering issue changes that fact.

    As for the selection of carriers, Level(3) and Savvis sounds like a good mix to me, and has worked beautifully. We did a lot of research and honestly believe those are the top two tier 1 networks. We did not base those selections on price, but purely on quality. On top of that, we do also have BtN.

    Are you just trying to bait me?
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  17. What providers in Chicago currently have ATT bandwidth instead of needing to use a peer?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    256
    Originally posted by KarlZimmer
    First of all, SBC reached an agreement with AT&T for purchase. They are not yet the same company let alone on the same network. They still trade independantly on the stock market, and I am not aware of when the deal is set to be finalized. I'm hoping that once the networks are finally merged these types of issues never happen again.

    I'm assuming you meant to say you had heard Savvis was crappy. Well, that would be incorrect, LayeredTech gets rave reviews and utilizes pure Savvis connectivity and I am sure there are other examples as well. We have done extensive research and decided to utilize Savvis because of their high levels of performance. From what I can tell, they are the top performing tier 1 carrier, across the board. I would hardly say a single peering issue changes that fact.

    As for the selection of carriers, Level(3) and Savvis sounds like a good mix to me, and has worked beautifully. We did a lot of research and honestly believe those are the top two tier 1 networks. We did not base those selections on price, but purely on quality. On top of that, we do also have BtN.

    Are you just trying to bait me?
    given that his website(s) is/are hosted on savvis bandwidth... either he's baiting or a retard.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    825
    Karl, I wasn't trying to bait you. If it's cheap and it works then use it. And as I clearly stated, I was referring to SAV in CHI, not in Dallas. That's great you have a third provider and the point I was trying to make is that I simply would not choose SAV in CHI.
    Devon Dunham (Owner, Sharpnet/DDoS Host)
    Advanced DDoS Mitigation and Server Management Solutions

    Protecting your online infrastructure.

    Est. 1998.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    634
    What providers in Chicago currently have ATT bandwidth instead of needing to use a peer?
    I'm sure there are others, but I do know that Internap has AT&T transit in Chicago, though they were having intermittant problems with their AT&T connection going down in Chicago back in mid April. Internap's approach of buying a bunch of transit connections may be a crude (and expensive) method, but it does minimize issues like this related to peering points.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    Originally posted by DD-SNC
    Karl, I wasn't trying to bait you. If it's cheap and it works then use it. And as I clearly stated, I was referring to SAV in CHI, not in Dallas. That's great you have a third provider and the point I was trying to make is that I simply would not choose SAV in CHI.
    And it is somehow worse in Chicago than it is in Dallas because you use them in Dallas and I use them in Chicago, or what is the reasoning?
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    369
    Originally posted by KarlZimmer
    And it is somehow worse in Chicago than it is in Dallas because you use them in Dallas and I use them in Chicago, or what is the reasoning?
    I think he is refering about the datacenter in dallas where layered tech is at.

    He's talking about their datacenters.

  23. #23
    Still no fix, still in limbo and loosing clients......

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    977
    Originally posted by DD-SNC
    Karl, I wasn't trying to bait you. If it's cheap and it works then use it. And as I clearly stated, I was referring to SAV in CHI, not in Dallas. That's great you have a third provider and the point I was trying to make is that I simply would not choose SAV in CHI.
    You didn't state it clearly, in fact, you didn't state it all; you had to be parroting something that someone else said. Don't backpedal, just go away quietly. And no, there is nothing wrong with Savvis.

    As for the ATT thing, I will second the comments that have already been made on this list regarding ATT's lack of response to congested peering. I have personally observed numerous issues between ATT and GBLX, L3, and Cogent during the past year that involved high latency and packet loss. Every time, the explanation from the operations people at those carriers is "ATT won't upgrade the peering interface."

    To the original poster: If you're going to move, you might want to colo with someone that has direct connectivity to ATT. Although it wouldn't be my preference to deal with such a problem, hopefully it'll be the right answer for you. Just make sure they advertise the netblock you'll be sitting on to ATT, otherwise you'll probably have latency issues when reaching ATT through another carrier.

    To Karl: If you have four upstreams, why couldn't you tune your routes to make this customer's bits going to/from ATT transit a path other than congested Savvis peer? (I think you started to give an explanation, but it didn't seem very cohesive).

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    885
    Originally posted by tical
    To Karl: If you have four upstreams, why couldn't you tune your routes to make this customer's bits going to/from ATT transit a path other than congested Savvis peer? (I think you started to give an explanation, but it didn't seem very cohesive). [/B]

    Well he has savvis, btn and L3. BTN uses BTN & Savvis to reach ATT, so that rules out savvis, and he also stated level3 has congestion issues with att, we use L3 for ATT and its congested at times but not as bad as i have seen with savvis chicago.
    GigeNET
    Dedicated Servers + Cloud Servers + Colocation + DDOS Protection + IP Transit with FCP optimized routing
    Locations in Chicago Los Angeles and Ashburn

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    391
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    What providers in Chicago currently have ATT bandwidth instead of needing to use a peer?
    not many, if any. the AT&T presence in the midwest has always been bad to start with. couple that with their impending SBC purchase..AT&T has definetly tailed off of doing anything constructive with their network. And they still think (like Sprint) that IP to enterprises are more fufilling (re: $$$), so wholesale markets are pretty much neglected.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,508
    I've had no problems reaching steadfast via ATT. (IM on Comcast which is basically all ATT transit). No network performance issues at all.
    Linux junkie | steward.io

  28. That's great that you are, however...are you monitoring the connection? Raises pings and minor packet loss isn't going to affect web hosting...it kills game hosting. For the past 48 hours the peering issue hasn't cropped up.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,508
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    That's great that you are, however...are you monitoring the connection? Raises pings and minor packet loss isn't going to affect web hosting...it kills game hosting. For the past 48 hours the peering issue hasn't cropped up.
    I don't do WebHosting. I host an 18 (was the most popular 18 player server according to rankings March&April) player pub CS server and 10 player priv for our professional Esports team with multiple Sponsorships(ATI,AMD,Abit, OCZ,ETC). We only accept the best as staying consistant and being at the top of our game is vital to our sponsors. As such if the server was not performing above our expectations, we would not be using it. We're very demanding, when it comes to servers, the one at Steadfast has been a golden gem since day one.
    Linux junkie | steward.io

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    2,760
    Originally posted by vigor
    I've had no problems reaching steadfast via ATT. (IM on Comcast which is basically all ATT transit). No network performance issues at all.
    Over the past few years of being on Comcast, I've gotten to really dislike ATT bandwidht - There have been numerous issues with overcrowded peering points in numerous cities between ATT and numerous carriers.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,508
    Originally posted by Joshua
    Over the past few years of being on Comcast, I've gotten to really dislike ATT bandwidht - There have been numerous issues with overcrowded peering points in numerous cities between ATT and numerous carriers.
    I couldn't agree more. The routes are sometimes terrible. I live in NJ to goto Georgia. My transit goes to Chicago first... Just one example. I wish I had other options but I live 14000 feet from the Telco so I can only get limited speed DSL. The company I work for shares a Corporate office with Comcast, there on the other side of the Building but we share the same Cafe. Im always baggering there higher tier techs and network administrators. No luck yet.
    Linux junkie | steward.io

Posting Permissions

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