# Hosted by Colocrossing



## drmike (May 24, 2013)

<img src="http://www.lowendbox.com/wp-content/themes/leb/partner_colocrossing.gif">

Lowendbox.com still has that infamous "LowEndBox hosted by colocrossing connecting business" graphic on every page.

Time for a long overdue change of that graphic to:

"LowEndBox owned by colocrossing"

Interesting word choices in that graphic considering what transpired eons ago.


----------



## MannDude (May 24, 2013)

Actually, is it even _hosted _by Colocrossing anymore? The IP resolves to San Francisco, of which Colocrossing doesn't have a DC or cage...

EDIT: Derr der derrr, CloudFlare.

Either way, 'Hosted by Colocrossing' isn't entirely _false._ I mean, it is probably hosted by them. (Unlike LET now which comically enough had to go off network elsewhere)


----------



## drmike (May 24, 2013)

Perhaps instead:

HOSED BY 

Sure is funny reading some of the back archives on those sites and the many hitman pieces against the "competition".


----------



## Mun (May 24, 2013)

Lowendtalk is now hosted by Vanilla, and I doubt lowendbox is actually hosted by them now.


----------



## NodeBytes (May 24, 2013)

I heard they moved LEB over to rackspace at least for a little while at some point.


----------



## drmike (May 24, 2013)

Lowendtalk looks to be at Rackspace.

Lowendbox points to a Colocrossing IP in Chicago still registered to Joel.


----------



## MannDude (May 24, 2013)

bcarlsonmedia said:


> I heard they moved LEB over to rackspace at least for a little while at some point.


Crazy, because I heard that Colocrossing had 'great DDoS protection': http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/500/#Comment_500


----------



## drmike (May 24, 2013)

If Colocrossing had such great DDoS protection they wouldn't have been fronting things with Cloudflare.

My understanding that Colocrossing does NOT have ability to deal with attacks.  @Francisco perhaps can speak to what he knows about their network protection ability in Buffalo and elsewhere.


----------



## ihatetonyy (May 24, 2013)

I remember some discussions a while back about DDoS.. just pulled them up:

@CVPS_Chris:

http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/202580#Comment_202580



> The whole reason people are flocking to ColoCrossing network is because it simply is one of the BEST. The high commits in each location allows for large DDoS protection. Just because the network is large, and very reliable, doesnt mean we have to DDoS other providers to get their business.
> 
> Its simple actually, the current provider is bad and cannot sustain a simple DDoS attack no matter the size, so they look else where. Who is in their price range with the best protection? My guess would be ColoCrossing. I will stand behind their product all day long, as I know first hand what goes into their network. If you want more details email Jon and I am sure he would like to discuss how superior his network is.


And then in another, earlier discussion:

@Francisco:



> @Jack said: @CVPS_Chris Can you offer TCP Protection or Just UDP?
> 
> He can't offer either otherwise Jon would have to offer it to everyone. Both Alex and Jeremiah said the max they'll do is 4Gbit before nulls. Now, if this tune changed I'd launch filtering on the east coast. I got multiple people that have 10Gbit spikes. Besides, the best they were able to offer was ACL's for UDP.


----------



## drmike (May 24, 2013)

ihatetonyy said:


> The high commits in each location allows for large DDoS protection.


 

That has be one of the dumbest thing ever said by a provider.

"Look we have big drainage pipes so things can't flood".  Then along comes a big rain or in this instance bad traffic and boom.

While CC might have some "big" commits for bandwidth, those aren't big enough to live through modern attacks in a single location (i.e. Buffalo or Atlanta or wherever else).

Of course they could do something to centralize their bandwidth or geolocate take inbound packages and route over own private tunnel.  Would peg latency high though and still probably wouldn't be enough to handle real attacks.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (May 24, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> My understanding that Colocrossing does NOT have ability to deal with attacks.  @Francisco perhaps can speak to what he knows about their network protection ability in Buffalo and elsewhere.


 

If CC could mitigate attacks, our NY deployment wouldn't have been tanked offline by skid booters while we were moving the west-coast gear from SJ to LV.


----------



## drmike (May 24, 2013)




----------



## Aldryic C'boas (May 24, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> And... I try to leave BuyVM out of the muck   But welcome to the thread
> 
> Any idea of how big those attacks during the move were in Buffalo?   Just so folks have a good idea of where or what they can handle before getting nulled


Hah    Fran'll have to chime in on that one - he was dealing with the attacks while Solar and I were loading nodes into the truck.. I was just concentrating on getting things packed up quickly.


----------

