North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1)
- From: Travis Pugh
- Date: Mon Jun 11 15:15:22 2001
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote:
I'd actually specifically left them out, since even Tier 2 implies some
sort of backbone, at least in my book, and since they don't get any
points by calling themselves "tier 0". You might as well call band-x a
tier 2 provider if Internap fits the definition.
However, someone pointed out that Savvis was pushing the "tier 2 and
loving it" strategy pretty hard.
> Personally I think the whole "tier 1" craze is overrated. I'd rather have
> multiple good paths to my destination, and the ability to divert traffic
> elsewhere in the event of a problem. It can cost a lot of time and money
Amen to that. You only need to look as far as CW and PSI to see the
faults in a transit-free environment. One business relationship on the
rocks can destroy your full view of a routing table.
However, from the position of a Tier 2, you can aggressively pursue both
private and public peers and rest easy knowing that a dispute on the
business side won't destroy your connectivity, just increase load on your
> to get all the peering you need in all locations (or at least enough to
> keep from bouncing traffic across the country because thats where your
> peer is, or thats where your private peer is, etc). Then again it does
> solve the problem of path selection by making it a non-issue, there is
> only one path.
> Richard A Steenbergen <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)