Chicago bandwidth upgrade

News for the main page
User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by Edge100x » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:33 pm

We have added two more transit providers in Chicago. These bump up our total upstream connectivity in Chicago to 50 Gbps (with the effective DDoS mitigation capacity much higher because of filtering done by each upstream). The primary benefit of these extra providers is further resistance to large DDoS attacks, but the direct upstream links also increase performance by allowing us to bypass Internap for some inbound and outbound traffic and to better tweak routing paths. We will continue to use Internap as our primary bandwidth provider at this location.

To reflect these changes, we have renamed the location from "InterNAP Chicago" to "Premium Chicago". All current customers have been upgraded automatically.

User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by Edge100x » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:33 pm

The added upstream providers are ones that Internap also uses, which is why we can make sure that performance will be strictly better for our customers. For these upstreams, we're essentially removing Internap's network as an intermediary (and extra point of failure), while still taking advantage of Internap's MIRO software. We will also be adding our own route optimizations to select lower-latency paths on the outbound to customers who need a little extra tweaking.

The name change also means that reverse DNS entries have changes from x.internap-chicago.nfoservers.com to x.premium-chicago.nfoservers.com. If you have a service that is dependent on the old reverse DNS name, such as a remote MySQL service that is set up to allow only specific reverse DNS entries, make sure to update it to keep things working.

noname
A semi-regular
A semi-regular
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:55 am

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by noname » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:56 am

What about Frankfurt ? :(

stickz
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:06 am

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by stickz » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:53 am

noname wrote:What about Frankfurt ? :(
Or better yet what about every location. :lol:

Shouldn't customers always get the best regardless which location they activate? :cry:
Last edited by stickz on Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
soja
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:20 pm

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by soja » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:54 am

http://www.nfoservers.com/forums/viewto ... =1&t=12855

You should keep in mind these upgrades are very expensive. I doubt they will be done in locations that don't need it.
Not a NFO employee

stickz
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:06 am

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by stickz » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:10 am

soja wrote: I doubt they will be done in locations that don't need it.
So which locations need the lowest possible latencies? :twisted:

User avatar
soja
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:20 pm

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by soja » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:12 am

stickz wrote:
soja wrote:http://www.nfoservers.com/forums/viewto ... =1&t=12855

You should keep in mind these upgrades are very expensive. I doubt they will be done in locations that don't need it.
So which locations need the lowest possible latencies? :twisted:
The latency improvement is minimal, probably <5ms for most people. I personally see no improvement in latency to Chicago, since my ping was about the best it can be given the distance.
Not a NFO employee

stickz
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:06 am

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by stickz » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:29 am

soja wrote: I personally see no improvement in latency to Chicago, since my ping was about the best it can be given the distance.
Lucky, I got a stuck behind micro for the longest time until I finally got a shunt.

User avatar
soja
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:20 pm

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by soja » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:45 am

stickz wrote:
soja wrote: I personally see no improvement in latency to Chicago, since my ping was about the best it can be given the distance.
Lucky, I got a stuck behind micro for the longest time until I finally got a shunt.
?
Not a NFO employee

noname
A semi-regular
A semi-regular
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:55 am

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by noname » Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:22 am

The thing with Frankfurt is, it is their only EU location, so we can't move to another location that has
better protection in case we need it, like we could do between US locations.

I think it should be better protected because it is the only available option outside of the US they are offering.

User avatar
kraze
Staff
Staff
Posts: 4357
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:06 am
Location: California

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by kraze » Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:49 am

It's important to understand that these upgrades come as the locations need them. As mentioned previously, these upgrades are not cheap nor quick to implement. We will continue upgrading locations as the need arises for them.
@Kraze^NFo> Juski has a very valid point
@Juski> Got my new signature, thanks!
@Kraze^NFo> Out of context!
@Juski> Doesn't matter!
@Juski> You said I had a valid point! You can't take it back now! It's out there!

noname
A semi-regular
A semi-regular
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:55 am

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by noname » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:12 pm

kraze wrote:It's important to understand that these upgrades come as the locations need them.
Everyone needs extra protection, there is never enough :D

A lot of hosts now have networks with 100's of Gb's as protection, don't remain behind is what i am trying to say basically.
kraze wrote: As mentioned previously, these upgrades are not cheap nor quick to implement.
Yes, it is understandable.

Just saying my point of view on this though.

You guys are a good host so far, i can't really complain, but extra protection is always a big plus and would probably be appreciated by anyone, that is all ^^.

User avatar
soja
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:20 pm

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by soja » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:15 pm

noname wrote:
kraze wrote:It's important to understand that these upgrades come as the locations need them.
Everyone needs extra protection, there is never enough :D

A lot of hosts now have networks with 100's of Gb's as protection, don't remain behind is what i am trying to say basically.
kraze wrote: As mentioned previously, these upgrades are not cheap nor quick to implement.
Yes, it is understandable.

Just saying my point of view on this though.

You guys are a good host so far, i can't really complain, but extra protection is always a big plus and would probably be appreciated by anyone, that is all ^^.
There are a very select few who can offer that protection. As explained by Edge before, hosts that advertise that kind of protection are either bluffing, or reselling servers from the one host I know of that can offer that kind of protection(without scrubbing the traffic at an external location).
Not a NFO employee

User avatar
kraze
Staff
Staff
Posts: 4357
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:06 am
Location: California

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by kraze » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:20 pm

Everyone needs extra protection, there is never enough :D

A lot of hosts now have networks with 100's of Gb's as protection, don't remain behind is what i am trying to say basically.
There is a lot more to protection then just bandwidth. Capacity is just one thing on a long list to provide good protection.

I'm also unsure of where you got that number, but no "a lot" of host do not have 100's of Gb's of protection. Many places who claim to have this much truly don't or are combing all of their locations for a total amount of capacity, If we did that we'd have Tb's of protection.
@Kraze^NFo> Juski has a very valid point
@Juski> Got my new signature, thanks!
@Kraze^NFo> Out of context!
@Juski> Doesn't matter!
@Juski> You said I had a valid point! You can't take it back now! It's out there!

User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Chicago bandwidth upgrade

Post by Edge100x » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:21 pm

It is definitely not true that many hosts offer protection greater than what we have here. It is common for hosts to claim that they do, of course -- it's easy to do that, and most people will never notice when it's a lie. It should also be noted that those very few hosts that offer protection for very large attacks do not have protection that is as effective as ours for smaller attacks (which can be just as damaging).

In Frankfurt, the protection level is up above 100 Gbps for large reflection attacks. Attacks larger than this which require nulls are not common.

Please also keep in mind that we don't market ourselves as a DDoS mitigation host. Our primary function is not DDoS mitigation and we do not make guarantees about it. We do a good job at it, but we do not pretend to be perfect or able to mitigate all attacks.

Post Reply