Resultados 1 a 4 de 4
  1. #1
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,050

    [EN] Panorama: desempenho de backbones e preços banda nos EUA segundo membros WHT-US

    Agosto 2016

    alun
    USD8/Mbps from Level 3 at ashburn. They are totally not willing to nego the price. 1Gbps also need around USD5/Mbps

    webtech
    We received a quote of Level3 (Direct) at $5.81 after costs. They bill you separate for bandwidth/port and access

    Bandwidth itself was $464
    Access was $117
    for a total of $581/mo

    Microlinux
    Those prices are inline with what I'd expect on a small commit and with no ancillary services. Rates are generally tied to related to commit and overall spend. L3 usually has little interest in "small" accounts, you're gonna get shafted on everything from price to support.

    Jasonsite
    We were paying around $6/Meg for 200Meg on Gig prior to taxes on a commit from a few years back. I actually had negotiated a lower than commit burst rate, but I don't think we ever went over, as we also had Cogent. Onnet fiber, no router onsite. Unfortunately Level 3 isn't the cheapest provider on the block.

    We've had good success with Zayo as a replacement to Level 3! NTT is also a good one, I hear.

    funkywizard
    Telia has been having serious global network oversubscription problems the last couple of months. May be improved now, but I'm not going to find out the hard way. Shifted our traffic elsewhere and cancelling the port.

    Telia's official stance is that they're adding "more than 400gbps" of capacity "as soon as possible" to address the issue. They had at least 3 extended full-pop outages as a result of sloppy work in upgrading those pops (Dallas, NYC, and another one). I suspect they added some huge client they didn't have the capacity to service, and just let their entire network go to crap for going on 2 months now for the sake of signing on that contract. Nobody "accidentally" oversells to the tune of 400gbps.

    Really frustrated because prior to this Telia was our best performing carrier, and definitely not our cheapest.

    Encrypted
    There's no point in going directly through Level3 for a commit like that [100Mbps]. We were trying to do 2G on 10G and they wouldn't build-in for less than $6k/m.

    We have 2G on 10G with Zayo and have incredible pricing from them.

    Jasonsite
    Level 3 has a great network, but their pricing is overrated. They told me they wouldn't compete with other providers such as Cogent. Obviously Cogent is cheaper, but I didn't even give them a chance when we moved our network. Just not worth it. They wanted too much for us to be on a 10Gig port.

    hhw
    And why should they compete with Cogent? Cogent may be good value for the money, but let's not kid ourselves, they're nowhere in the same class. At the very least, you should be comparing them more to Telia and NTT, but keep in mind that Level3 is the much stronger network in North America. Level3's pricing is also highly subject to negotiation. If all you have to offer is a 1Gb commit on a 10Gb port, you're not going to have a lot of leverage with them. In which case, resellers are good for these situations.

    SenseiSteve
    Agreed that Cogent is good for the money, but Level 3 is what it is. You have to have some sort of leverage to obtain better pricing from them and a 1Gb commit on 10Gb port doesn't cut it for leverage (at least not for them).

    Jasonsite
    Unfortunately that's all I had to compare with at the time. I agree though, NTT would be the next comparable provider. Not sure about Telia, but Zayo would also be up there. Level 3's billing is a mess. I was warned prior to signing up, but found it to be true. Their support is not organized very well either.

    hhw
    NTT is great for some parts of Asia from more northern cities in North America, because they're on the PC1 cable that goes straight out across the Pacific from Seattle, instead of having to go down to Los Angeles first. They're also good for getting to other Tier 1 providers over peering, as well as to their own on net customers. Can't expect too much more from a Tier 1 carrier.

    Not sure how their POP's are limited, when they're in every major peering city that matters. Adding POP's in other cities isn't going to do much for network performance. Or are you referring to which buildings they're in? I've yet to come across any major carrier hotel where they don't have any presence, but we're not in Chicago or Dallas (or Ashburn), and perhaps you're referring to one of those cities? They have far better long haul fiber paths than Cogent does, and better latency on most routes as a result.

    As I mentioned in response to you in another thread, Cogent has no northern east-west fiber paths, which means any traffic between the Pacific Northwest and New England has to travel down south, across, and back up which makes their latency the worst possible by design for either of those two regions. This prevents us from pushing much traffic to them, as we have to assign higher local preferences to other transit providers on a lot of routes for which we receive city specific community strings for. This is another point on which Cogent is weak on; having more limited community strings makes them much more difficult to optimize routes and engineer traffic for, which pretty much results in other transit providers being treated as more optimal by default.

    Not sure what or when you received quotes, but Level3 is in line with NTT and Telia's pricing from what we've been quoted just in the multiple Gb commit range, any of which is less than 3x Cogent let alone Cogent + 2 others. I don't want to throw out any specifics, but we're only paying about 20% more than we'll be paying for Tinet once our pending upgrades are complete.

    hhw
    Zayo, or at least Abovenet was great for transport services, but I always found their IP transit was always a bit lacking. We've also seen a quite a number of instances of congestion with their Dallas Equinix public peering, although it's been a while since the last time so perhaps they finally upgraded their capacity there.

    The last round of quotes I received from them last year were quite high, especially given that we had received much better quotes from them earlier. Higher than Level3 actually. We do not maintain a relationship with them however, so perhaps they've kept existing customers at better rates while quoting new business higher.

    KarlZimmer
    I keep wanting to comment on things in here, but everything you (hhw) are saying in this thread is exactly in-line with my experiences. Just needed to let people know that you know what you're talking about here. :-)

    charlesit
    Level(3) quoted me at $2220/month for full GigE, /24 IPs.

    Jasonsite
    To further comment since my original statement, Zayo is wonderful to work with. That being said, we are seeing congestion in Indianapolis. I was told they have a 10Gig port with high utilization. Typically they would have 100Gig between major cities, but there is some congestion. Therefore, our 10Gig port is more like a 1Gig port. I am actively working with our account manager to resolve this. Hopefully they can get it resolved.

    It's interesting that IP transit get's such a low priority in comparison to transport. There's obviously a price difference, so that would likely explain why. Overall I've been satisfied with Zayo! Their support is great and most folks know other staff members or know who they are, even on a first name basis. That's truly impressive!

    (cont)

  2. #2
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,050
    FastServ Randy
    We've had the least issues with Zayo vs most of the other tier1's over the past decade. Level3 always seems to be having global or market level issues from time to time, usually caused by configuration changes gone bad. Lately they seem to be on a roll. Check the NANOG archives. I don't feel their pricing is worth it.

    hhw
    I see something happened back in April, and before that July of 2015, June of 2015, and April of 2014. June 2015 was global, but the other were local/regional issues in different places so customers of theirs would have been affected 2x in 3 years, unless there are other incidents not mentioned on NANOG. Obviously, not perfect, but every network has issues from time to time. I have seen more instances of Zayo's congestion at Dallas Equinix than all of those Level3 issues combined, as well as issues in Seattle almost as many times. Given that Zayo is a much smaller network, with a lot less that can go wrong and a lot fewer people to notice when it does, I would say that makes their track record markedly worse with more instances of issues, and far more issues if adjusting for the size of their network. It's also a lot easier to fix capacity issues lasting several hours each time and ongoing for several months at a single public exchange, than to roll out stricter prefix limits policy worldwide when you're the world's largest carrier. Granted, we only turned up Level3 a few months back, but from my recollection we were only affected by the Telekom Malaysia incident, whereas we've never had Zayo transit and still managed to notice issues with their network.

    Obviously, everyone's opinion is going to be coloured by their own experiences, but I don't think there's any objective basis to conclude that Level3 has had more pervasive issues than any other provider over the last 3 years, and certainly not more than Zayo. And considering that we're actually getting better pricing from Level3 than Zayo, I think they are well worth it.

    JonBiloh
    Anyone who has direct, recent, experience willing to share pricing data on a couple 10ge ports with 2 gbit CDR each direct to Level3?

    hhw
    We probably benefited from being in a market they're very interested in entering (Vancouver), as well as having a much larger transport deal on the table, but I told them from the get go that they'd need to be competitive with NTT and Telia, and the numbers they quoted me with were better than the most recent quotes I had gotten from either of those other companies, albeit those were from some months earlier. That's the extent of what I'm willing to share.


    DMDM
    they are in Vancouver now? We dropped them in Toronto in favor of Cogent. Their network was very good, but we have not seen any downside whatsoever from replacing them with Cogent, we are in the second annual term now. The reason we dropped Level3 was their pricing and their refusal to talk about it even though we were not asking them to reduce their bill. So we traded our 1GE Level3 port for a 10GE Cogent port and actually reduced our budget when cross-connect costs are factored in. And then CAD dropped and our Cogent bill got even cheaper relative to Level3 because Level3 wants USD and Cogent is happy with CAD.

    Cogent in Vancouver is much weaker than in Toronto though where they have massive capacity. I suspect the same goes for Level3 if they moved into Vancouver recently.

    Regarding Telia- we did a lot of tests when we were looking for Level3 replacement and Telia's performance was exceptional, beating Level3 in many cases for major routes.

    Encrypted
    One thing that I will say is that your sales rep makes a HUGE difference in what pricing you will receive. I spoke to someone (terrible rep) a few months ago who stated we couldn't get 2G on 10G for under $6k/month. I reached out to a rep I had talked with several years back to see if he could do better because I just wasn't willing to pay $6k/m for 2G. I'm not going to discuss the pricing on here for obvious reasons, but it sounds like he's going to be able to provide us with a higher commit for less $. Take into account the fact that they also need to build-in to us; their closest splice point is about 2 blocks away.

    So in summary, if Level 3 is already on-site and you want 1G on 10G, I certainly think $1-$2/Mbps is obtainable these days.

    hhw
    We signed an agreement for 10Gb ports in both Vancouver and Seattle, but they're not in Vancouver yet. They were originally supposed to turn up in November but now looking more like the new year. There also won't be any routers in Vancouver, all traffic will go through Seattle. Not an issue for us as we wouldn't send any traffic to them destined for Canadian networks anyhow. It's just a bit cheaper to not have to backhaul the traffic ourselves, as the rate for IP transit is the same in either city.

    As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Cogent has no northern east-west path so any northwest city to northeast city has pretty high latency i.e. Vancouver to Toronto, Seattle to Chicago or New York, etc. as they take the route down to the southern US, across, and then back up.

    We're paying less than double in USD with Level3 than in CAD for Cogent, but maybe a little more, something like 1:2.5 after factoring in the current exchange rate.

    Why are x-connect fees less for Cogent than Level3 in Toronto for you? Is Level3 not available to connect at the BMMR at 151 Front St., or do you have to connect to them in Cologix?

    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1590694

  3. #3
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,050
    vempatisripada
    Oct 11, 2016

    We have taken 100Mbps network to our colo from Level 3 Communications with 1Gbps burstable link. We see that we are into 95 percentile and now Level3 is giving us quote of $4.20/MB after we cross 95 percentile limit.

  4. #4
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,050
    Tony Holloway

    Even though we support Ashburn, my concern with any costal city is always weather phenomenon. While granted, most of the time a hurricane will never get that far north with any real force behind it, but it has happened in the past. The last big one was Ivan in 2004 that produced several tornadoes and lots of rainfall.

    While most data centers are well protected and all have backup generators, UPS, etc. That does nothing if the carriers go out or start having issues.

    Prime example, with this last hurricane Matthew, we have a customer that has servers with another company in Florida. We had documented issues with Level3 and had to stop announcing their IPs to Level3 in our data center to force communication over another upstream provider. While this only lasted the better part of 1 day, it was still an issue.

    Although Dallas can have the same issues with tornadoes and flooding. So to me neither are ideal. Just about every major city is at risk, so the real questions becomes where are your clients coming from? And then what upstream providers are the data centers you looking at using. This should be more of your concern. For example if you expect some European clients, Ashburn will not save you anything if they are not providing you with upstream provider like Tinet. If you expect middle eastern or India clients, you need to look for an upstream provider like Tata.

    So it comes down to more then physical location. You need to weigh all parts of what you are being quoted and see what makes sense for your business plan.

    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...83#post9781083

Permissões de Postagem

  • Você não pode iniciar novos tópicos
  • Você não pode enviar respostas
  • Você não pode enviar anexos
  • Você não pode editar suas mensagens
  •