Internap is comming!!

[admin]

I just wanted to let everyone know we had a meeting with internap yesterday and may be getting some lines with them.

We believe InterNAP offers the most unique routing and IP connectivity model in the industry and will provide you with the fastest, most reliable, and scalable Internet service available. The distinct difference between Internap and other providers is that they have direct connect through PAID transit agreements to the top NINE National Service Providers:


UUNET
Sprint
Cable and Wireless
GTE/BBN
Digex
ATT
Verio
Global Crossing
Qwest


We hope to have something with them in the next 6 months or less.. I just thought I would share with you guys.. Don't hold me to anything yet, but we are looking..

[admin]

A little longer then I had planned. But we are signing with internap today to bring in new lines.

The first DS3 45MB will be going to Atlanta, GA then we will be getting a 2nd line going south to Miami, FL. This will give us about 90MB with internap in 2 PNAP's. This will also give us better connections to South America with the Miami, FL link and much better peering in the US with the Atlanta, GA link.

We also have plans to upgrade our lines with cogent as well to increase speed.


Once Internap is installed that will bring our network providers up to 12 providers.

Inetnap providers:
UUNET
Sprint
Cable and Wireless
GTE/BBN
Digex
ATT
Verio
Global Crossing
Qwest

Ours:
Cogent
Epik
Level(3)

We also have time warner in our other DC that at some point will being a DS3 from it so we can offer all 11 providers in that DC as well as rack space is a little cheaper.

[cambodia]

check your spelling brad ( everone ) joking , don't tell me we going to change ip & name server again

[admin]

Hey I never said I won any spelling B's..


No we have our own IPs, we should never have to change them again unless arin makes EVERYONE switch to IPV6 and I don't see that happening for a LONG time. The old 65.xxx.xxx.xxx IP's were level(3) IP's we did not own them. We own all the 216.157.xxx.xxx and 216.81.xxx.xxx IPs.

[cambodia]

great i'm happy to hear that anyway i got problem with dedicated ip & ssl as state in other thread i still can't get how to make SSL work maybe i try it next week when my internet connection come

[Brangwyn]

Cool good stuff Brad.

[admin]

Yea I can't wait. I used internap a few places and its fast for sure..

[keidsjedo]

That's great! I've done business with them before (Seattle) and was very impressed with what they could do with routing. Great news.

[mresell]

Sounds great.

[antic]

Hey Brad, great news.

Which are the providers that give the best performance to down here in Oz? I checked out a provider in the US once who was using Internap, and the ping times were very good from here...

[antic]

Hi guys. Just wondering again, which are the best providers to down here in Australia from the U.S.? Which, out of Cogent, Epik and Level(3) give the most bandwidth to the Asiapacific? And will Internap add more speed from down here?

Only asking coz I ALWAYS get the same line from my clients - "won't our site run slower if we put it all the way over in the US?" d'oh! I'd like to be able to tell em something positive about that. Or at least wildly technical and impressive.

That being said, I know *I'm* very impressed with your service! All aspects of it!

[craigdunlop]

Originally Posted by antic

...Just wondering again, which are the best providers to down here in Australia from the U.S.? ...
Only asking coz I ALWAYS get the same line from my clients - "won't our site run slower if we put it all the way over in the US?" d'oh! I'd like to be able to tell em something positive about that...

I have the same issue...

Here's some of my guesses, please correct me if I'm wrong as my network knowledge is limited...

In AU I think the av. ping to Matrix is approx. 300ms or more, hopefully this will improve with the new routing.

So for a normal website that may have 9 images and html - we'd be looking at 10 x 250 ms (ping dif) = 2.5 seconds latency compared to local connection which doesn't sound good. As Brangwyn mentioned, this would probably not be noticable on slower connections as they'd still be waiting for content anyway. I'm on cable and from my observations I can rarely tell any difference anyway. I assume the speed something can be downloaded at would make more diference then the route it takes, so if your server can transfer content faster, then this latency will be negligible.

Another disadvantage would be if Telstra OS connection goes down - so does the site for AU clients

I guess the advantages normally are:
1. Local servers are generally more expensive
2. Local servers often aren't as feature rich (asp components, Unix/Windows/CF, etc)
3. The server is internationally based - meaning that for cutomers on a world-wide scale it will generally be better (hmmm - not quite sure this is correct?)
4. It will be blazing fast for US clients
5. If telstra connection goes down - your site can still be viewed by international clients
6. If the NOC is better equipped then the local NOC and has faster line-speed...

Do we have a chart somewhere showing the bandwidth of our network?


Just throwing something into the brew there - some assumptions may be totally wrong but I thought worth discussion...

[admin]

These 2 pages might help:

http://internap.com/about/theproblem.html
http://internap.com/about/oursolution.html

Internap will help for everything around the world since they have 9+ providers
UUNET
Sprint
Cable and Wireless
GTE/BBN
Digex
ATT
Verio
Global Crossing
Qwest

[Brangwyn]

"won't our site run slower if we put it all the way over in the US?"

In all honesty though that statement probably is correct, It will usually always run slower, your talking 200ms vs <50ms international/local in most cases.

It's noticably slower to those on decent broadband hookups generally speaking, but not slow enough to really be called "slow" if ya know what I mean.

[antic]

Thanks for that! Yeah, the speed is noticibly slower when a site has lots of images, since the browser is encountering the connection delay multiple times. I've noticed, with sites which only have a couple of images, the speed difference is negligible, almost unnoticable.

Cool... it's definitely useful to explain the difference in those terms - a clean site is a speedy site.