Re: Cogent?

I have an 802.11b connection to the Westin right now (~3mi, point-to- 
point).  There's also a Seattle Wireless labeled antenna next to  
mine, both facing NE (Whose is that?).  I end up with 2-5% packet  
loss and throughput around 200KB/sec on a good day and 20% packet  
loss and an unusable connection on a bad one.  It's fun to play with  
and it's nice to have the direct path back to my home network, but  
the number times that I've had to head down to the Westin and change  
the channel on or reset my AP has made it more trouble than it's  
probably worth.

2.4Ghz is really, really crowded, maybe 5Ghz is better but I haven't  
wanted to shell out the ~$500 in equipment to find out.  My  
directional antennas have a beam width of ~18 degrees and I still  
hear 5-10 random APs, I just don't think it's possible to make  
anything work reliably in the space with CSMA equipment.  If you have  
5Ghz stuff lying around, I'd be happy to act as an end point for  
testing, but since I already have colo and an antenna I probably  
wouldn't convert to a paying customer.


Logan Bowers



On Jul 17, 2007, at 11:39 AM, John van Oppen (list account) wrote:

> Cogent is not bad in a lot of places, however, their network in  
> Seattle
> is worse than most places though.   They haul almost all traffic to
> California for peering (they have only one or two local peers in SEA)
> over a non-redundant fiber path (I have a nice snapshot of my BGP feed
> sending 400 routes for 8 hours while that fiber was down).
>
> In any case, I think in a multi-homed situation they can fit in  
> nicely,
> but these days other providers will provide nicer connectivity for
> similar costs.   This of course leaves out the fact that cogent's  
> NOC is
> very hard to deal with sometimes, I constantly ran into them wanting
> ridiculous amounts of documentation for route additions or any other
> changes.   I have limited tolerance for that kind of office-policy  
> since
> my other two providers built dynamic filters and were cooperative  
> given
> the number of routes we announce (> 100).
>
> On the Seattle Wireless side of things, I was looking at putting some
> wifi APs in the windows of the Westin, would anybody be interested in
> testing them out?   We would probably charge for access to them, but I
> was thinking 802.11g or 802.11a would be pretty slick if I just gave
> them each dedicated fastE back to my network.   Anyone up for this?
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Casey Halverson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:24 AM
> To: SeattleWireless Talk List
> Subject: RE: Cogent?
>
> Good luck sending email from Cogent.  The internet community accuses
> them of harboring spammers.  The email blacklists make it difficult to
> really do anything useful from their ip space.
>
> For better or for worse, routing policies force traffic off their
> network as fast as possible when its destined for another ISP, instead
> of routing it as close as possible internally, and then through the
> peering.  This puts more expense on "the other guy", whether their  
> path
> is better or not.
>
> Cogent to cogent network traffic has been reported as good.  I have
> heard rumors of oversubscription, but all the cogent customers I know
> say this is not true.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:talk-
>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Long
>> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 5:20 PM
>> To: SeattleWireless Talk List
>> Subject: Re: Cogent?
>>
>> Ralph Sims wrote:
>>> Anyone here directly using Cogent as an upstream or have any recent
> info
>> on
>>> their reliability, routing, etc.?
>>
>> You should search the nanog email list. My response is always "it
>> depends on what your needs are". Everyone has heard of their peering
>> disputes. No sense rehashing it here. Most people wouldn't notice the
>> difference between cogent and another upstream though. The  
>> question is
>> are you "most people" :)
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
Talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk