nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent Layer 2
From: "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder () es net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:52:12 -0500
Thus spake Mike Hammett (nanog () ics-il net) on Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:36:39PM -0500:
Are any legitimate beefs with Cogent limited to their IP policies, BGP session charges, and peering disputes? Meaning, would using them for layer 2 be reasonable?
Be sure to ask if your circuit will face a 2G/flow cap, and examine if such a limitation would affect your expected traffic mix. https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/iv0job/2gb_traffic_flow_cap_on_single_sourcedestination/ Dale
Current thread:
- Cogent Layer 2 Mike Hammett (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 David Hubbard (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Shawn L via NANOG (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Robert Blayzor (Oct 15)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Brandon Martin (Oct 15)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Shawn L via NANOG (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 David Hubbard (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Dale W. Carder (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Ryan Hamel (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Rod Beck (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Ryan Hamel (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Rod Beck (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Ryan Hamel (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Rod Beck (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Radu-Adrian Feurdean (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Rod Beck (Oct 14)
- Re: Cogent Layer 2 Ryan Hamel (Oct 14)