North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Dana Hudes wrote: > > The pressure is on to use co-location service only from Big Players. > Indeed, remember the big fight over Exodus peering arrangements? > Someone (GTE?) decided that Exodus should pay them for transit and > pulled peering. since no other large network pulled such stunt the > result was that GTE customers were inconvenienced more than Exodus > customers. The message is loud and clear. If you want your server > farm to have good access, put it in a good co-location facility in the > US run by (or connect your co-located equipment to) a very large > provider who has good redundancy not only of their network as a whole > but of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only one WAN circuit > does not have good redundancy even if the LAN is exceedingly good and > fault-tolerant etc.). I'd disagree whole-heartedly (partly because I am not a huge, national tier-1). Wouldn't you rather connect your equipment to a smaller company, that is potentially more flexible, has more clueful people, has better pricing, and is multihomed to maybe 3 or 6 or 9 backbones?