North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Peering Table Question
- From: I Am Not An Isp
- Date: Mon Apr 24 10:10:40 2000
At 06:29 AM 4/24/00 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> May I conjecture, in the light of the current discussion, that a "tier 1"
>> ISP is one which makes a net profit from "peering" and a "tier 2" is one
>> that does not ? Or is it that a "tier 2" ISP has real customers ?
>teir-1s don't pay for routing to anywhere. tier-2s pay for routes from
>tier-1s and may also pay for transit.
The CTO of GTEI/BBN claimed that if their traffic flows were > 2:1 outbound
to any network, they would pay the "peer" network for the imbalance. I do
not know if their traffic is that unbalanced to any other network, but it
is definitely a possible scenario. Would that make AS1 a "tier 2"?
Why does the fact that a network is willing to pay peers for an obviously
inequitable traffic balance make that network a non-tier-1? Why does that
not just make them fair and reasonable?
Of course, there are other ways of being "fair", such as the network with
the web sites offering to carry the traffic long haul. But that would
require an exchange of MEDs, something which you have personally claimed
was a Bad Thing for years.
So please help me understand how it is possible for a network which
specializes in web hosting to become a tier-1? Even if it had a gigantic
percentage of traffic on the Internet, other networks would still want it
to pay for the traffic imbalance.
Or does the definition of "tier-1" now include "balanced traffic flows"?
I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net
ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
"Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
(Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)