.

@waylander, thank you for the informative article. One question; you mentioned that Frogfoot is owned by Vox and that Vox is one of the recommended ISP's - any idea if Vox and Frogfoot behave identical or is Frogfoot not as great?
 
Bighit said:
@waylander, thank you for the informative article. One question; you mentioned that Frogfoot is owned by Vox and that Vox is one of the recommended ISP's - any idea if Vox and Frogfoot behave identical or is Frogfoot not as great?
Click to expand...

Frogfoot is just owned by Vox (and utilises some of their infrastructure for upstream transit) and is not at all the same as Vox. Different network and different management. Further, Frogfoot supplies transit (and other xaaS) to smaller ISPs such as Crystal Web and the experience you may find on one ISP that uses Frogfoot may differ to another as transit is only part of what makes a good connection.

Contention ratios will differ, POPs will differ, network diversity will differ and many more factors that are less important. For example, an ISP that utilises Frogfoot will purchase xMbps of transit at a DC which is 100% dedicated to that ISP, that ISP then decides how many users on their network will share that xMbps, which other transit providers they will use, where they will place infrastructure to lower latencies (closer a POP, lower the latency to other services near that POP) - if an ISP only has a POP in JHB, then all traffic from that ISP will be routed to JHB first, then to Frogfoot's network, while another ISP with a POP in JHB and CPT and DBN will have all traffic route to the closest geographic POP first, then to wherever it's supposed to be which is the most efficient way of routing traffic in terms of latency but adds expense as each POP requires it's own transit, hardware and port fees.

To conclude, Frogfoot and Vox are not the same, and not all ISPs which use Frogfoot will be the same.
 
Great post. If there is something I would like to see updated, it would be if you can add a split for international and local transit/peering.

For example:

Cool Ideas (AS37680)
International Transit:HE
Local Transit: IS (JHB), eNetworks (CPT)
(not sure where you get these, but you get the idea: Seacom, Liquid, WIOCC)

Also, while Web Africa has their own network, their DSL/FTTH is reselling of IS. Their hosting is on their own network.
 
Tinuva said:
Great post. If there is something I would like to see updated, it would be if you can add a split for international and local transit/peering.

For example:

Cool Ideas (AS37680)
International Transit:HE
Local Transit: IS (JHB), eNetworks (CPT)
(not sure where you get these, but you get the idea: Seacom, Liquid, WIOCC)

Also, while Web Africa has their own network, their DSL/FTTH is reselling of IS. Their hosting is on their own network.
Click to expand...

When providers peer with HE at an IX HE list it as being a transit link although technically and in most cases it isn't.
International and local transit is seldom split these days, in your example, Cool Ideas would (i hope) have 2 x transit providers in the event of a failure/diversity and shortest path routing, ISP101. They would maintain behind the scenes IX peering locally and internationally as do most ISP's. ISP's that peer correctly could reduce transit traffic by 50-80 percent. Therefore while a good idea, your example is largely pointless.
 
dabouncer said:
When providers peer with HE at an IX HE list it as being a transit link although technically and in most cases it isn't.
International and local transit is seldom split these days, in your example, Cool Ideas would (i hope) have 2 x transit providers in the event of a failure/diversity and shortest path routing, ISP101. They would maintain behind the scenes IX peering locally and internationally as do most ISP's. ISP's that peer correctly could reduce transit traffic by 50-80 percent. Therefore while a good idea, your example is largely pointless.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss?

There may be some blending, but not always. Also it makes a difference. Your post is clearly just your opinion.
 
Tinuva said:
That doesn't matter, but up till recently I did. Do you?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand how you know when someone is being ignorant. Did you manage the DFZ routing and transit/peering interconnects while you worked at the ISP?
 
dabouncer said:
I'm trying to understand how you know when someone is being ignorant. Did you manage the DFZ routing and transit/peering interconnects while you worked at the ISP?
Click to expand...

Is that a trick question? How many networks in ZA run without a default route inside the borders of SA?
 
Tinuva said:
Is that a trick question? How many networks in ZA run without a default route inside the borders of SA?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, i don't believe you are qualified to make decisions about someones ignorance when you haven't been able to demonstrate that you are not ignorant yourself.

I cannot comment on how many well established ISP's in ZA run with a DFZ however it is not difficult if you plan your transit and peering properly, ie: dont buy transit from 2 providers who both have Seacom as their transit provider. Take IS and Liquid Telecom as another example, they both have different upstreams. Therefore a provider in ZA buying transit from both gets a good mix of full tables.
 
dabouncer said:
With all due respect, i don't believe you are qualified to make decisions about someones ignorance when you haven't been able to demonstrate that you are not ignorant yourself. I cannot comment on how many well established ISP's in ZA run with a DFZ
Click to expand...

Too bad. I answered the question the same way you answered mine. It demonstrated that I understood your question, too bad you didn't realize that.

I will admit that you do know more than someone not working in the field, but I stay with the part where I believe it is clearly your opinion (referring to your first post quoting my suggestion).


dabouncer said:
however it is not difficult if you plan your transit and peering properly, ie: dont buy transit from 2 providers who both have Seacom as their transit provider. Take IS and Liquid Telecom as another example, they both have different upstreams. Therefore a provider in ZA buying transit from both gets a good mix of full tables.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The idea was to make it easier to see this in the list of ISPs in the opening post of this thread. Because buying a local feed from IS and full feed from HE in London, is not the same as buying a full feed from IS and a full feed from HE in London.
 
Last edited:
Tinuva said:
I will admit that you do know more than someone not working in the field
Click to expand...

I am privileged to work in the industry so yes i know;which is maybe where it appears odd to the lesser informed about the ins and outs.

Tinuva said:
but I stay with the part where I believe it is clearly your opinion (referring to your first post quoting my suggestion).
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Every technical person is likely to have a different opinion which is good.
 
Tinuva said:
Exactly. The idea was to make it easier to see this in the list of ISPs in the opening post of this thread. Because buying a local feed from IS and full feed from HE in London, is not the same as buying a full feed from IS and a full feed from HE in London.
Click to expand...

You wont know what a provider is buying unless they tell you, most of what happens on ISP networks is a closely guarded secret. We can assume, but we know assumptions are just that.

HE is present in ZA, you can buy transit from them out of Teraco Isando, same with some other large Tier 1 carriers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X