Results 1 to 25 of 53
-
08-09-2002, 04:53 PM #1Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
why cogent is bullsh*t ... (i am frustrated)
ok... i've got a server in chicago... (and yes, i use cogent only because they're cheap but if there were anybody as easily accessible, i'd drop cogent n run like hell from that cr*p)...
i am on the west coast ... my traceroute to that server takes around 200ms... should not take more than 60ms because not only does my ISP peer with PSINet in chicago (cogent's network after aquisition) but it also peers with metromedia/above.net in seattle... well... i do a traceroute... where does my data go
Vancouver, BC (Telus) -> New Westminister, BC (Telus) -> Seattle, WA (Telus) -> Seattle, WA (MetroMedia/Above.net) -> San Jose, CA (MetroMedia/Above.net) -> Pao Alto, CA (MetroMedia/Above.net) -> San Francisco, CA (Cogent) -> Dallas/Fort Worth, TX (Cogent) -> Washington, DC (Cogent) -> New York, NY (Cogent) -> Chicago, IL (Cogent)
i mean... whats the point of going bloody coast-to-coast on their own network... i could understand if the entry point from other networks made it go coast to coast... but ... this is bloody ridiculous... any cogent lover want to justify this? oh... and 200ms, that does make a bloody difference when loading websites! i mean... ping times like that... make even my SSH and Terminal Services sessions bloody unbearable!
not to forget i get minimum 80ms pings to stuff on the west coast when it shouldn't be more than 30-40! i mean... i can get to my exodus stuff in Georgia in around 80ms!
-
08-09-2002, 06:03 PM #2Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
- Posts
- 2,295
You have no right to complain! Cogent is ~30$ per mbit. Yipes, Time Warner etc providers are ~300$ per mbit. Yes that's right! 10 times more! Tier 1 providers cost even more.
Cogent offers you cheap bandwith, so it is no issue on HOW they do it cause with that price you can be glad if it works at all (and it does!)
-
08-09-2002, 06:10 PM #3Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
nice argument... $30/Mbps but thats a minimum commitment of 100Mbps... verio is no more than $90/Mbps on most major providers... and thats in low volumes... yet their bandwidth is probably what, 10x better than cogent? so shouldn't cogent reduce their bandwidth rate to $9/Mbps then? same with level3/etc, you get 100Mbps, then ~$100/Mbps... so cogent should be $10-9/Mbps... on a commitment of 100Mbps...
even with that cheap bullsh*t, there should atleast be some level of quality... ! paying for this crap gives me the right to complain! just because i buy a ford doesn't mean i can't b*tch at the sales person if my steering wheel breaks off... ! or the car stalls at anything above 30mph... !
heck dude... i could sell a 100Mbps pipe with the full 100Mbps and rack for $9000/month with exodus+internap+worldcom bandwidth colocated directly in an exodus facility... and thats WITHOUT overselling... just because its cheap doesn't mean i am not responsible for the quality of service! thats only what, $90/Mbps? and those are the top 3 tier-1 providers (well, excluding internap i guess)...
-
08-09-2002, 06:11 PM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2000
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Posts
- 5,990
I don't see any problem with that route.
I've never seen a route where it went from Seattle(Above.net) to Cogent. My traces always go to Palo Alto, where Cogent peers with Above.net.
Besides, even Cogent's network map, shows that they go from Seattle, to Sacremento. Nowhere does it show Seattle going anywhere else.
-
08-09-2002, 06:18 PM #5Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
the problem with my route is that it goes from west coast to east coast to central... a totally pointless addition of latency... all within the cogent network
-
08-09-2002, 06:19 PM #6Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
- Posts
- 2,295
Who says that Cogent HAS to be 10 times cheaper. Their service is much more then just 10% of Verio and others.
Even if Cogent was "just" 50% cheaper it would still be a good offer cause it would still be half the price... anyway I really don't see an issue here.
-
08-09-2002, 06:21 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2001
- Location
- Dayton, Ohio
- Posts
- 4,977
Originally posted by netdude
the problem with my route is that it goes from west coast to east coast to central... a totally pointless addition of latency... all within the cogent network
The longer your packets stay on their network, the less it costs cogent...
Thats how they offer low cost bandwidth..
If you want better peering, then pay more for better bandwidth, plain and simple....
-
08-09-2002, 06:25 PM #8Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
but i guess i could say... pretty much all the other major backbones are atleast 3x better than cogent... 60ms to chicago vs 200ms... heh
nocsol, i see you're in chicago as well... heh... i do a traceroute to chicago.com (hosted by exodus in chicago)... i get 60ms, 13 hops... ... ... why does cogent take 200ms and 23 hops? because they're so excellent ... ... ...? and no, my isp does not peer with exodus
-
08-09-2002, 06:27 PM #9Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
- Posts
- 2,295
Originally posted by netdude
but i guess i could say... pretty much all the other major backbones are atleast 3x better than cogent... 60ms to chicago vs 200ms... heh
nocsol, i see you're in chicago as well... heh... i do a traceroute to chicago.com (hosted by exodus in chicago)... i get 60ms... ... ... why does cogent take 200ms? because they're so excellent ... ... ...?
-
08-09-2002, 06:29 PM #10Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
incorrect... i am sure i could get two routers, put it in the exodus datacenter and get them to bounce every packet between eachother atleast a few hundred times before putting it out over the exodus feed, but i doubt that'll save me a penny... their cost is dependant on trying to put the packets over their peers rather than their transit provider (above.net)... well, once data is already on the cogent network, theres no point in routing their data back n forth, coast to coast... its a waste of network resources actually...
Originally posted by The Prohacker
The longer your packets stay on their network, the less it costs cogent...
Thats how they offer low cost bandwidth..
If you want better peering, then pay more for better bandwidth, plain and simple....
-
08-09-2002, 06:32 PM #11Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
they aren't 10 times cheaper... 3x cheaper than my example offer, which includes rackspace, so cogent ain't all that great overall... and my offer includes bandwidth from those tier-1s that u say cost so much more...
and i already gave you examples of 2 of those alternative providers (verio and level3) that you mentioned... and how cogent definately isn't a tenth of their price...
Originally posted by NocSol
No mate. Because they are 10 times cheaper then all the others... geeze
-
08-09-2002, 06:33 PM #12Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
- Posts
- 2,295
Yeah well, that might be correct. My point is more of a non-technial nature. I pay 10% of what others ask (or 20% or 30%, doesn't really matter) and I have ~98% uptime. An dwhen the routing sometimes sucks (300ms+) then that's ok too cause it comes with the low charge. If they had no disadvantage at that pricing, then all other bw-providers would b eout of business.
-
08-09-2002, 06:34 PM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Posts
- 751
If you aren't willing to pay more, then don't compain.
-
08-09-2002, 06:38 PM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2000
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Posts
- 5,990
I'm north of Seattle, WA and I just did a PING to Chicago(fdcservers.net) and it was only 110ms.
-
08-09-2002, 06:40 PM #15Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
- Posts
- 2,295
Originally posted by dreamHOBO
If you aren't willing to pay more, then don't compain.
Originally posted by JTY
I'm north of Seattle, WA and I just did a PING to Chicago(fdcservers.net) and it was only 110ms
-
08-09-2002, 06:49 PM #16Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Posts
- 279
This is a traceroute to kingcomp.net (the only ISP using Cogent in Chicago I can think of at the moment )
traceroute to kingcomp.net (66.28.242.138), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 mfsc1-130-150-102.csu.net (130.150.102.253) 0.354 ms 0.227 ms 0.222 ms
2 WestEdGSRPOS-WestEdCAT6009POS.CSU.net (137.145.11.45) 0.239 ms 0.210 ms 0.206 ms
3 QSVGSR-WEGSR-ATM.CSU.net (137.145.202.125) 11.023 ms 10.943 ms 10.864 ms
4 QSV-M10-C2.GE.calren2.net (137.164.12.166) 20.994 ms 11.348 ms 11.172 ms
5 POS1-0.hsipaccess1.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.247.159.109) 11.621 ms 11.548 ms 11.693 ms
6 gigabitethernet4-2.core1.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.2.133) 11.646 ms 11.545 ms 11.586 ms
7 pos5-0.mpr6.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (208.184.232.161) 11.375 ms 11.906 ms 11.443 ms
8 pos0-0.mpr2.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (208.185.156.69) 11.736 ms 11.412 ms 11.411 ms
9 pos9-0.mpr1.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (216.200.0.233) 11.999 ms 11.455 ms 11.670 ms
10 so-1-1-0.mpr4.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (208.184.102.202) 11.544 ms 11.754 ms 11.548 ms
11 pos7-0.mpr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net (216.200.127.25) 78.954 ms 79.035 ms 79.606 ms
12 so-2-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net (208.185.0.138) 79.275 ms 79.484 ms 79.174 ms
13 pos2-0.mpr1.iad5.us.mfnx.net (216.200.127.10) 79.474 ms 79.343 ms 79.118 ms
14 64.124.112.29.cogentco.com (64.124.112.29) 89.992 ms 89.661 ms 90.547 ms
15 p15-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.22) 90.221 ms 90.985 ms 89.962 ms
16 p6-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.82) 86.681 ms 85.876 ms 85.716 ms
17 p15-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.14) 186.117 ms 205.000 ms 200.751 ms
18 p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.86) 86.092 ms 86.650 ms 86.438 ms
19 g50.ba02.b000268-0.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.78) 86.465 ms 85.776 ms 87.006 ms
20 Datacenter.demarc.cogentco.com (66.28.21.82) 92.227 ms 94.982 ms 87.212 ms
21 66.28.242.138 (66.28.242.138) 88.530 ms 88.021 ms 92.167 ms
That's 92ms maximum.
Now, a traceroute from the same point to chicago.com:
traceroute to chicago.com (64.37.221.182), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 mfsc1-130-150-102.csu.net (130.150.102.253) 0.398 ms 0.230 ms 0.239 ms
2 WestEdGSRPOS-WestEdCAT6009POS.CSU.net (137.145.11.45) 0.253 ms 0.217 ms 0.211 ms
3 QSVGSR-WEGSR-ATM.CSU.net (137.145.202.125) 11.034 ms 10.939 ms 10.945 ms
4 QSV-M10-C2.GE.calren2.net (137.164.12.166) 11.476 ms 11.289 ms 11.030 ms
5 POS1-0.hsipaccess1.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.247.159.109) 11.756 ms 11.498 ms 11.520 ms
6 ae0-56.mp2.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.2.161) 11.855 ms 11.981 ms 11.940 ms
7 so-2-0-0.mp2.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (64.159.0.217) 12.880 ms 12.742 ms 12.893 ms
8 pos9-0.core1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (209.247.10.234) 12.903 ms 13.152 ms 12.748 ms
9 acr1-so-2-0-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.147.201) 14.779 ms 14.717 ms 14.528 ms
10 agr4-loopback.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.146.104) 15.045 ms 15.095 ms 15.219 ms
11 dcr1-so-1-3-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.156.29) 14.942 ms 14.809 ms 14.743 ms
12 ibr01-p5-0.sntc05.exodus.net (208.172.156.74) 15.634 ms 15.915 ms 15.782 ms
13 bbr01-g6-0.sntc05.exodus.net (64.56.192.17) 16.010 ms 16.093 ms 16.025 ms
14 bbr02-p2-0.sntc03.exodus.net (209.1.169.69) 17.055 ms 17.263 ms 17.153 ms
15 bbr02-p0-0.okbr01.exodus.net (216.32.132.170) 77.594 ms 77.889 ms 78.030 ms
16 dcr03-g8-0.okbr01.exodus.net (216.34.183.100) 77.620 ms 77.473 ms 77.486 ms
17 csr02-ve242.okbr01.exodus.net (216.33.64.18) 78.300 ms 78.332 ms 78.121 ms
18 64.37.221.182 (64.37.221.182) 77.863 ms 77.736 ms 77.819 ms
That's 77 ms, that's a difference of 15ms.
I don't get your point. I can give you examples of bad routing for every provider out there. Packets often take ridiculous routes all over the globe. That's not really unique to Cogent.321Host-It Internet Services
http://www.321host-it.com
ICQ: 17021242 E-mail: gernot@321host-it.com
-
08-09-2002, 06:53 PM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2000
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Posts
- 5,990
If you post the actual traceroute, we can determine where most of the latency is coming from.
-
08-09-2002, 06:53 PM #18Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- England, UK
- Posts
- 734
Originally posted by JTY
I'm north of Seattle, WA and I just did a PING to Chicago(fdcservers.net) and it was only 110ms.
Pinging fdcservers.net [66.28.242.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.28.242.138: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=49
Reply from 66.28.242.138: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=49
Reply from 66.28.242.138: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=49
Reply from 66.28.242.138: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=49
Speed is really good (much, much better than what I normally get for some hosts who are on a different provider other than Cogent), I wouldn’t complain if my host had pings like that!
-
08-09-2002, 07:10 PM #19Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
so... nocsol, when your clients ask you what kind of service they should expect from you, what do you tell them? 'you get what you pay for'... kinda like what my friend says that works at a chevron says... "they pretend to pay me, so i pretend to work'... lol
also... u got a GigE to cogent in chicago? i didn't even think fdc had that... lol...
Originally posted by NocSol
Yeah well, that might be correct. My point is more of a non-technial nature. I pay 10% of what others ask (or 20% or 30%, doesn't really matter) and I have ~98% uptime. An dwhen the routing sometimes sucks (300ms+) then that's ok too cause it comes with the low charge. If they had no disadvantage at that pricing, then all other bw-providers would b eout of business.
Tracing route to www.kingcomp.net [66.28.242.138]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 20 ms 10 ms 20 ms 209.53.12.254
2 10 ms 10 ms 50 ms 209.53.75.198
3 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms nwmrbc01br01.bb.telus.com [204.174.217.39]
4 40 ms 20 ms 10 ms sttlwa01br02.bb.telus.com [209.53.75.178]
5 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms acr2-so-2-1-0-0.Seattle.cw.net [208.172.81.129]
6 40 ms 30 ms 40 ms agr4-loopback.SantaClara.cw.net [208.172.146.104]
7 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms dcr1-so-1-3-0.SantaClara.cw.net [208.172.156.29]
8 40 ms 40 ms 41 ms agr2-so-0-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net [208.172.156.58]
9 30 ms 30 ms 40 ms bpr1-loopback.PaloAltoPaix.cw.net [208.172.146.18]
10 30 ms 40 ms 30 ms 206.24.241.42
11 40 ms 30 ms 40 ms so-4-1-0.mpr4.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [208.185.175.161]
12 91 ms 100 ms 90 ms pos7-0.mpr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net [216.200.127.25]
13 90 ms 100 ms 91 ms so-2-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net [208.185.0.138]
14 90 ms 100 ms 90 ms pos2-0.mpr1.iad5.us.mfnx.net [216.200.127.10]
15 * 150 ms 150 ms 64.124.112.29.cogentco.com [64.124.112.29]
16 150 ms 151 ms 140 ms p15-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.22]
17 150 ms 161 ms 150 ms p6-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.82]
18 160 ms 150 ms 161 ms p15-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.14]
19 180 ms 180 ms 181 ms p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.86]
20 180 ms 180 ms 181 ms g50.ba02.b000268-0.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.66.78]
21 * 181 ms 180 ms Datacenter.demarc.cogentco.com [66.28.21.82]
22 180 ms 181 ms 180 ms 66.28.242.138
Trace complete.
-
08-09-2002, 07:21 PM #20Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
- Posts
- 2,295
No reason to attack me mate. The GigE is NOT in our Chicago facility nor did I ever say it was.
When my clients ask me I show them our 98% SLA that applies to Cogent in Chicago and of course they are aware that it is Cogent. Again I don't really see an issue here nor why you are mixing my business into your discourse with Cogent...
-
08-09-2002, 07:22 PM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Posts
- 3,734
Trace is pretty good from here. If Kingcomps is yours, you should really upgrade apache.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Hop | %Loss | IP Address | Node Name | Location | Tzone | ms | Graph | Network |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | | xx.xx.xxx.xx | **** | * | | | | ServiceCo LLC - Road Runner |
| 1 | | 10.47.96.1 | - | ... | | 42 | -x- | (private use) |
| 2 | | 24.29.100.41 | 24-29-100-41.nyc.rr.com | New York, NY, USA | -05:00 | 15 | x-- | ServiceCo LLC - Road Runner |
| 3 | | 24.29.100.90 | pos2-0-nycmnyr-rtr1.nyc.rr.com | New York, NY, USA | -05:00 | 17 | x- | ServiceCo LLC - Road Runner |
| 4 | 10 | 24.29.97.29 | pos3-0-nycmnya-rtr1.nyc.rr.com | New York, NY, USA | -05:00 | 10 | x- | ServiceCo LLC - Road Runner |
| 5 | | 66.185.137.193 | pop1-nye-P0-2.atdn.net | ?Reston, VA 20191 | | 9 | x-- | AOL Transit Data Network |
| 6 | | 66.185.141.18 | bb2-nye-P5-0.atdn.net | ?Reston, VA 20191 | | 22 | x- | AOL Transit Data Network |
| 7 | | 66.185.153.118 | bb2-vie-P8-0.atdn.net | ?Reston, VA 20191 | | 47 | -x-------- | AOL Transit Data Network |
| 8 | | 66.185.139.83 | pop1-vie-P5-0.atdn.net | ?Reston, VA 20191 | | 48 | -x-- | AOL Transit Data Network |
| 9 | | 209.249.203.229 | pos8-0.er1a.iad1.us.mfnx.net | ?San Jose, CA 95113 | | 10 | x | Abovenet Communications, Inc. |
| 10 | | 208.185.0.153 | so-3-2-0.cr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net | ?San Jose, CA 95113 | | 15 | x- | Abovenet Communications, Inc. |
| 11 | | 216.200.127.10 | pos2-0.mpr1.iad5.us.mfnx.net | ?San Jose, CA 95113 | | 12 | x- | Abovenet Communications, Inc. |
| 12 | | 64.124.112.29 | 64.124.112.29.cogentco.com | - | | 12 | x- | Abovenet Communications, Inc. |
| 13 | | 66.28.4.22 | p15-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com | Washington, DC, USA | -05:00 | 26 | x------ | Cogent Communications |
| 14 | | 66.28.4.82 | p6-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com | New York, NY, USA | -05:00 | 21 | x-- | Cogent Communications |
| 15 | | 66.28.4.14 | p15-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com | New York, NY, USA | -05:00 | 31 | -x----- | Cogent Communications |
| 16 | | 66.28.4.86 | p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com | Chicago, IL, USA | -06:00 | 47 | x-- | Cogent Communications |
| 17 | | 66.28.66.78 | g50.ba02.b000268-0.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com | Chicago, IL, USA | -06:00 | 46 | x- | Cogent Communications |
| 18 | | 66.28.21.82 | Datacenter.demarc.cogentco.com | - | | 48 | x- | Cogent Communications |
| 19 | | 66.28.242.138 | www.kingcomp.net | ?Washington, DC 20007 | | 46 | x-- | Cogent Communications |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roundtrip time to www.kingcomp.net, average = 46ms, min = 40ms, max = 110ms -- 09-Aug-02 7:32:31 PM
-
08-09-2002, 07:26 PM #22Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
nocsol... sorry dude (i assumed, incorrectly) ... i shutup now ... because its obvious u guys have proven ur point ... and i've kicked and screamed enough ... lol
Originally posted by Gernot
I don't get your point. I can give you examples of bad routing for every provider out there. Packets often take ridiculous routes all over the globe. That's not really unique to Cogent.Last edited by netdude; 08-09-2002 at 07:32 PM.
-
08-09-2002, 07:31 PM #23Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
- Posts
- 2,295
Originally posted by netdude
nocsol... sorry dude (i assumed, incorrectly) ... i shutup now ... because its obvious u guys have proven ur point ... and i've kicked and screamed enough ... lol
-
08-09-2002, 07:54 PM #24Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Posts
- 279
With pleasure.
traceroute to chicago.com (64.37.221.182), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 phnx-core-7513.getnet.net (216.19.223.1) 1.113 ms 0.523 ms 0.441 ms
2 host9.64-58-236.webaccess.net (64.58.236.9) 1.029 ms 1.263 ms 1.014 ms
3 gige5-0-144.hsipaccess2.Phoenix1.Level3.net (63.214.168.41) 1.255 ms 1.029 ms 1.208 ms
4 ge-6-0-1.mp1.Phoenix1.Level3.net (64.159.3.105) 1.673 ms 2.054 ms 1.561 ms
5 so-3-0-0.mp2.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.1.130) 18.630 ms 19.142 ms 18.918 ms
6 so-2-0-0.mp2.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (64.159.0.217) 19.763 ms 19.076 ms 18.971 ms
7 pos9-0.core1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (209.247.10.234) 19.501 ms 18.952 ms 20.165 ms
8 acr1-so-2-0-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.147.201) 20.946 ms 22.074 ms 21.011 ms
9 agr4-loopback.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.146.104) 22.899 ms 21.379 ms 21.232 ms
10 dcr1-so-0-3-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.156.13) 21.503 ms 21.023 ms 21.225 ms
11 ibr01-p5-0.sntc05.exodus.net (208.172.156.74) 22.348 ms 22.404 ms 22.251 ms
12 bbr01-g2-0.sntc05.exodus.net (64.56.192.1) 22.136 ms 22.068 ms 22.754 ms
13 bbr02-p2-0.sntc03.exodus.net (209.1.169.69) 23.856 ms 23.120 ms 24.402 ms
14 bbr02-p0-0.okbr01.exodus.net (216.32.132.170) 77.998 ms 77.023 ms 78.122 ms
15 dcr03-g7-0.okbr01.exodus.net (216.34.183.68) 77.613 ms 77.392 ms 77.887 ms
16 csr02-ve242.okbr01.exodus.net (216.33.64.18) 78.314 ms 77.951 ms 77.866 ms
17 64.37.221.182 (64.37.221.182) 77.641 ms 77.511 ms 77.932 ms
Why does it go from Phoenix to the west coast and not directly to Chicago? That's highly inefficient. If I had more time I would love to give you more examples but unfortunately, I have other things to do as well
Routing is a little more complicated than you think, so you'll always see such inefficient routes with every single carrier. That's a problem of the Internet as a whole and not solely of Cogent.321Host-It Internet Services
http://www.321host-it.com
ICQ: 17021242 E-mail: gernot@321host-it.com
-
08-09-2002, 07:58 PM #25Coder :)
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
- Posts
- 1,028
Originally posted by Gernot
With pleasure.
Why does it go from Phoenix to the west coast and not directly to Chicago? That's highly inefficient. If I had more time I would love to give you more examples but unfortunately, I have other things to do as well
Routing is a little more complicated than you think, so you'll always see such inefficient routes with every single carrier. That's a problem of the Internet as a whole and not solely of Cogent.
my original complaint was why cogent was taking the data from san francisco, piping to to new york, then washington dc and then to chicago... essentially making it bounce from coast to coast... within the cogent network...