Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ilsoph
i need to make some decisions, and i want to know what exactly, is it about cogent that makes it inferior.. everyone knows they're substandard, but i want it quantized.
i want to know things like: inferior infrastructure? higher latency? more hops? less redudancy? more 'hiccups'? or...??? (references to stats/articles would be appreciated)
has anyone (individual, magazine, review site, etc) performed an indepth analysis and comparision of cogent vs Tier 1?
another thing.. cogent typically comes with a 99.5% SLA... does anyone have any information as to the frequency and/or duration of downtimes?
|
Well hope you got some time. I was one of the first ISP's to buy cogent, a gig of it, then 2. If you are strctly cogent to cogent their network rocks. The fastest cross country hop I ever saw was from cogent frisco to cogent dc. 10 ms, most isps are 60 milliseconds. So whats the issue? The issue is that they angered every tier 1 provider and so they peer with the tier 1's at public peering points. Generally these are over saturated. At times, because cogent has very few pull customers (those where the bulk of their bandwith is pulled by web surfers) and many push (web hosting companies) Other ISP's will make them pay for peering instead of the free peering tier 1's give each other. This peering is done privately. At different times the peers cogent has are so over subscribed that they are trying to fit 4 gigs of traffic over a .622 gig pipe. Other times the way they deploy their loops to people gets fucked. The cogent 1Gbps loop is made of of 2 oc-12 pipes (622 mbps) bonded on a switch . Lots of times they get short on equipment and all you get is 622 instead of 1000. There are other factors, inferior equipment, specifically the cisco 2948 l3G is a piece of shit and they use it a lot. Cisco after all funded them. The better switches at lower prices like foundry, extreme and riverstone are not available to them because of an exclusive agrreement. So hope that answers your question.