Results 1 to 31 of 31
  1. #1

    Internap / more peering better?

    My colo is charging about $80/Mbit, they use InterNAP. Is that reasonable? This is in west coast/california.

    That brings me to my other question, how do you know whats a good network? How is hurricane electric compared to InterNAP?

    fixedorbit.com shows HE on the top 10 list and shows a lot of peering. I don't see InterNAP on that list at all! Does that mean thats it not as good?

    The more peering, the better? (I guess we assume that the network provider isn't over selling and isn't cramming a lot of customers into a single port etc...)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,277
    Its all a matter of policy, philosophy and network reach. While InterNAP does not have an international network like HE, they make up for it with alot of accountability, and a vast amount of high regard in the services they offer. The InterNAP philosophy is to connect to alot of top 'tier 1' carriers to aggregate the best of the best. While that may not yield great performance (as much as you might think), it does, as a whole yield a good amount of stability.

    Now, my personal opinion is that InterNAP is all hype. Its a good sales pitch to companies like Nasdaq. Now those companies do require performance, its to a different degree. Nasdaq is not known for their network engineering capabilities so its clear they're just passing the buck and paying top dollar for it. On my own network, I feel the more peering the better. I like my packets to be as close to their destination as possible, regardless (for the most part) of cost to transmit said packets.

    Hope this helps.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Internap does have quite a bit of peering in addition to their transit. This wasn't the case in the past, however.

    Don't worry about the FixedOrbit rankings, that's not really a method to determine the best network for a specific application.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    717
    it all really depends what you need

    If you need bandwidth quality than Internap is 10x better than HE.NET
    If you need bandwidth quantity and don`t care about quality than HE.NET will give you better bang for your money

    Also paying $80/Mbit for Internap is rape
    Petr Kral - FDCServers.net LLC
    Los Angeles - Seattle - Denver - Chicago - Miami- New York - Paris - London - Madrid - Amsterdam - Frankfurt - Vienna - DATACENTERS
    10+Tbps of internet connectivity --- 10G, 20G, 40Gbps unmetered services in 17 US & EU locations

  5. #5
    What's your commit size? $80 seems high.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by hdpt00 View Post
    What's your commit size? $80 seems high.
    1Mbit. I don't know (yet) what they do for higher rates 5Mbit+

  7. #7
    What about for "global" traffic, which is better to get... HE or InterNAP or something else (level3)?

    From looking at the network maps for some of them, it seems InterNAP is the only one with centers in asia (compared to HE/level3).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    L.A., CA
    Posts
    3,706
    If you want the best global reach, no 1 provider will do the job.
    You need a BGP4 mix of multiple providers as they all have different qualities to different locales.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by atria78 View Post
    What about for "global" traffic, which is better to get... HE or InterNAP or something else (level3)?

    From looking at the network maps for some of them, it seems InterNAP is the only one with centers in asia (compared to HE/level3).
    I'm not sure you understand what Internap is...having centers in Asia is irrelevant for Internap's product...With Internap you're getting a mix of about 7-9 tier-1s, e.g. Level(3), AT&T, Savvis, NTT, Sprint, GBLX, etc. It does vary from POP to POP but thats the general idea.

    In terms of global reach, Internap is pretty good, however peering is quite important when it comes to that and you may find other solutions superior.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,419
    Quote Originally Posted by AFerrier View Post
    If you want the best global reach, no 1 provider will do the job.
    You need a BGP4 mix of multiple providers as they all have different qualities to different locales.
    agreed - as well single providers have problems from time to time so it is helpful to be able to turn it off or route around it until it is resolve if you have multiple upstreams in the mix.
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0 View Post
    I'm not sure you understand what Internap is...having centers in Asia is irrelevant for Internap's product...With Internap you're getting a mix of about 7-9 tier-1s, e.g. Level(3), AT&T, Savvis, NTT, Sprint, GBLX, etc. It does vary from POP to POP but thats the general idea.

    In terms of global reach, Internap is pretty good, however peering is quite important when it comes to that and you may find other solutions superior.
    So, what are some good providers in the California-bay area region that provide good global reach?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    166
    Xeex is pretty decent so is bandcon. Both have pretty decent networks

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by atria78 View Post
    So, what are some good providers in the California-bay area region that provide good global reach?
    Verio perhaps? Not sure if they are in the bay area region though.
    Email: info ///at/// honelive.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by atria78 View Post
    So, what are some good providers in the California-bay area region that provide good global reach?
    Mzima certainly comes to mind (especially if you're targeting Asia).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    962
    Quote Originally Posted by atria78 View Post
    So, what are some good providers in the California-bay area region that provide good global reach?

    Layer42.net has an excellent network.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    490
    $80/Mbps for Internap on such a low commit is not that bad.

    When I called layer42.net, they quoted me $100/Mbps up to 10Mbps which seemed a little high for what it was. Their pricing for full cabinet + 10Mbps was very reasonable though.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hanoi
    Posts
    4,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Anantha View Post
    Verio perhaps? Not sure if they are in the bay area region though.
    NTT has a datacenter in San Jose, however, when I contacted them, I never got reply.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    285
    Internap wanted $70/Mbps on a 20Mbps commit. We were able to talk them down to $65/Mbps on 20Mbps commit. $80/Mbps is not bad on a 1Mbps commit.

    Internap is an excellent choice versus having one or two providers.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    North Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    2,565
    More peering is always better. I think this is a very important aspect of the business most smaller providers neglect. It's even more important now with all these top tier carriers like AT&T trying to find a way to filter traffic. The more peers you have the less likely your packets are to traverse one of the big carriers.
    Aaron Wendel
    Wholesale Internet, Inc. - http://www.wholesaleinternet.net
    Kansas City Internet eXchange - http://www.kcix.net

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    2,656
    Quote Originally Posted by mhalligan View Post
    Layer42.net has an excellent network.
    Are their peering db entries up to date? Aside from Ashburn, they don't seem to have any presence outside the west coast, and they don't seem to have any Tier 1 upstreams.
    ASTUTE HOSTING: Advanced, customized, and scalable solutions with AS54527 Premium Canadian Optimized Network (Level3, PEER1, Shaw, Tinet)
    MicroServers.io: Enterprise Dedicated Hardware with IPMI at VPS-like Prices using AS63213 Affordable Bandwidth (Cogent, HE, Tinet)
    Dedicated Hosting, Colo, Bandwidth, and Fiber out of Vancouver, Seattle, LA, Toronto, NYC, and Miami

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    A padded room
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by Anantha View Post
    Verio perhaps? Not sure if they are in the bay area region though.
    NTT/Verio is terrible choice. I have a server with them right now and am planning on moving it this month. Their techs know what they are doing, but to actually get to one of them when you are having issues, reboot, hardware swap, etc... yeah, its easier to get a private concert with Bono.

    You should check out rackspace as well though, I think they have a colo close to LA.

    But if you are buying a 1Mbs connection, $80 is not too bad.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Quote Originally Posted by atria78 View Post
    My colo is charging about $80/Mbit, they use InterNAP. Is that reasonable?
    It depends how much bandwidth you are buying. I can't speak for Internap specifically, but there are plenty of providers that would be $100+/Mbps for a few Mbps, but then $20/Mbps for 100Mbps. We can't tell you if it's a good deal without more information.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    A padded room
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by bqinternet View Post
    It depends how much bandwidth you are buying. I can't speak for Internap specifically, but there are plenty of providers that would be $100+/Mbps for a few Mbps, but then $20/Mbps for 100Mbps. We can't tell you if it's a good deal without more information.
    I agree, it is all in the economics of scale. If you are buying a 1Mbps connection then yeah, $80 is reasonable. But if you have a 45Mbps pipe, then $50 per Mbps would be reasonable.

    But it all depends on the quality of the bandwidth you are buying as well... You can spend twice that for different providers if they have direct connections to a backbone.
    Last edited by Corey Blaser; 02-03-2008 at 02:06 AM.

  24. #24
    $80.00 per Mbps for a 1Mbps commit on a 10Mg Ethernet is aggressive...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    Hi John,

    Good to see you here. welcome
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI.
    Posts
    1,358
    [QUOTE=atria78;4926085]My colo is charging about $80/Mbit, they use InterNAP. Is that reasonable? This is in west coast/california.
    [quote]

    At the low commit rate you mentioned later in this thread, no, I would say that is on par with average.


    That brings me to my other question, how do you know whats a good network? How is hurricane electric compared to InterNAP?
    I would look at a number of factors. Who are their peers, customer references are always a god indicator, as well as a little investigation on your own.

    I've heard good things about HE for QUANTITY...


    fixedorbit.com shows HE on the top 10 list and shows a lot of peering. I don't see InterNAP on that list at all! Does that mean thats it not as good?
    I take sites like this with a grain of salt, much like I do speed test sites. I'm not sure this is a good indicator.


    The more peering, the better? (I guess we assume that the network provider isn't over selling and isn't cramming a lot of customers into a single port etc...)
    Again, this is where the opinions of real customers come in. Ask for reference, and look for opinions from people already currently using them.
    Jeremy Anthony Kinsey ([email protected]) - 262-248-6759
    Budget Dedicated Servers/Colocation HostDrive.Com
    cPanel Hosting/Dedicated Servers HostingLizard.Com
    19 Years in the Hosting Business!

  27. #27
    There could be no two large service providers at more opposite ends of the spectrum....There is a reason Internap charges $80/Mbps and HE charges $7/mbps....HE does have a lot of peering and purchases Transit but not in a lot of locations. Their model is least cost routing. For US companies, peering with large carriers is much more difficult in the US than it is in Europe. You could see a packet with a source and destination in Los Angeles go to Europe and back to avoid Transit connection costs if HE peers with them in EU but not in the US. Much like you see from other low cost providers like cogent. With them it is the opposite, they may send traffic from EU to the US to Peer with France Telecom or DT and then it goes back to EU because of the peering arrangements and least cost routing. They want traffic off their network as cheap as they can do it and do not monitor what happens to the packet after it leaves their infrastructure. If latency does not matter than it is a great way to keep your costs down and wonderful for certain applications..
    Internap prefers to purchase transit from 8-10 tier ones per Pnap depending on what is best in each market and then pings the end destination through ALL of their transit relationships monitoring every hop and exchange along the way and then sends the traffic out the fastest connection at any moment. There is no better way to insure your traffic takes the best route from source to destination. If you need the best, Internap is the way to go. It costs them a lot more money to operate a network like this so the per/mbps fees are higher..

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    Internap used to have 7 or more transit providers (I don't know about 10, haven't seen one PNAP with 10 transit providers), but as of late, they have reduced this number. In fact, they have dropped Level3 from two of the NYC PNAPs that I know (111 8th and 25 Broadway) for reasons that only they know
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    2,687
    Have you considered going through an InterNAP reseller or a data center which has a large commitment with them instead of dealing with InterNAP directly?

    E.g. As one example, if you take a look at Colo4Dallas they will give you a BGP blend of InterNAP, Level 3 and Time Warner with InterNAP FCP route optimization, redundant HSRP uplinks and a 100% SLA for significantly less than $80 - $100 per Mbps even on low comits.

    - Chris
    Last edited by Rochen; 02-06-2008 at 03:39 PM.
    Chris Adams - CEO - Rochen Ltd. - chris (at) rochen (dot) com

    Now offering both US & UK premium business hosting, reseller hosting and managed virtualized services.
    rochen.com | rochen.co.uk | blog.rochen.com | forums.rochen.com | Twitter: @rochenhost

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by FHDave View Post
    Internap used to have 7 or more transit providers (I don't know about 10, haven't seen one PNAP with 10 transit providers), but as of late, they have reduced this number. In fact, they have dropped Level3 from two of the NYC PNAPs that I know (111 8th and 25 Broadway) for reasons that only they know
    IIRC, Level3 has not been present in either location for a very long time now. Are you sure this was just done recently (or "as of late")?

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by FHDave View Post
    Internap used to have 7 or more transit providers (I don't know about 10, haven't seen one PNAP with 10 transit providers), but as of late, they have reduced this number. In fact, they have dropped Level3 from two of the NYC PNAPs that I know (111 8th and 25 Broadway) for reasons that only they know
    Was seven here in Chicago. AT&T, MCI/UUnet/Verizon Biz, Sprint, Level 3, NTT/Verio, Savvis and Global Crossing. Looks like Level3 may be gone now. Not a huge loss in my opinion but I would still like to know why.

    Maybe with dialup starting to fade, there are less "eyeballs" on L3. I know Covad.net uses Level3 exclusively as their ISP but most other large ISPs/websites have their own networks these days.
    Last edited by scooby2; 02-06-2008 at 06:13 PM. Reason: whoops #2

Posting Permissions

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