Results 1 to 25 of 31
Thread: AT&T - Savis in Chicago HELP!!!!
-
05-15-2005, 10:22 PM #1Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 27
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&T’s 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:
205.218.67.196Last edited by Call2Arms; 05-15-2005 at 10:28 PM.
-
05-15-2005, 10:42 PM #2Web Hosting Guru
- 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?
-
05-15-2005, 10:54 PM #3Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 27
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.
-
05-15-2005, 10:55 PM #4Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 380
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.
-
05-15-2005, 11:12 PM #5Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 27
Where is the loss on that ip for you?
-
05-15-2005, 11:17 PM #6Web Hosting Master
- 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 msJames Lumby
-
05-15-2005, 11:29 PM #7Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 380
Originally posted by Call2Arms
Where is the loss on that ip for you?
-
05-15-2005, 11:33 PM #8Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 21
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 Sup@fly; 05-15-2005 at 11:43 PM.
-
05-15-2005, 11:37 PM #9THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
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 - 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
-
05-15-2005, 11:40 PM #10Web Hosting Guru
- 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.
-
05-15-2005, 11:49 PM #11Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 21
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 ?
-
05-15-2005, 11:56 PM #12Web Hosting Guru
- 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.
-
05-16-2005, 12:11 AM #13Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 27
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.
-
05-16-2005, 12:37 AM #14THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
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.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
-
05-16-2005, 03:07 AM #15Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
05-16-2005, 03:29 AM #16THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
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.
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 - 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
-
05-16-2005, 11:54 PM #17Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 21
What providers in Chicago currently have ATT bandwidth instead of needing to use a peer?
-
05-17-2005, 12:27 AM #18Web Hosting Guru
- 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?
-
05-17-2005, 03:50 AM #19Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
05-17-2005, 01:21 PM #20Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 633
What providers in Chicago currently have ATT bandwidth instead of needing to use a peer?
-
05-17-2005, 01:28 PM #21THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
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.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
-
05-18-2005, 07:17 AM #22Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Posts
- 368
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?
He's talking about their datacenters.
-
05-18-2005, 07:48 PM #23Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 27
Still no fix, still in limbo and loosing clients......
-
05-19-2005, 06:05 AM #24The least among you.
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Jacksonville, FL
- Posts
- 981
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.
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).
-
05-19-2005, 08:46 AM #25Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Location
- Chicago IL
- Posts
- 900
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