North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]
- From: Randy Bush
- Date: Sun Mar 27 16:00:35 2005
here is what i answered a private message on the subject, with a
typo corrected. [un]fortunately, i seem not to have saved the
follow-on mess age where i suggested how one could get a good first
cut at this from route-views data.
From: Randy Bush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:17:03 -0800
To: a nanogian
Subject: Re: Apology: [Re: Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]
> ...which I read to mean you believe there is a measurement or a
> demonstration (performance-wise or topology-wise) to support at least
> two classes of networks. I'm not arguing, but I am curious since you are
> indicating you believe its demonstrable.
read, for example, the paper trail i cited earlier in this thread.
> What measures do you believe are most indicative of a "better" network?
better? i did not say better. a simple way to look at it, which
we have repeated here every year since com-priv migrated here is
a tier-1 network does not get transit prefixes from any other
network and peers with, among others, other tier-1 networks.
a tier-2 gets transit of some form from another network, usually but
not necessarily a tier-1, and may peer with other networks.
this does not please everyone, especially folk who buy transit and
don't like discussing it. and there are kinky corners (if i have
the bad taste to tunnel through someone, that is not transit).
but it does not make one network 'better' than another. for our
biwa office (where my employer has no presence), the best network is
one where i know the ceo, so can get something fixed if i need to
panic and the csr does not cut it.