North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
- From: Peter Cohen
- Date: Fri May 05 08:49:57 2006
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=L3U1Ra/lSO4iAjp3GeIpFc53UZm+ps4MnLgquGhoJq3ooSsMwYF/RUvZeaqUwRaw4cPE7RFKDQu009nv2AbE0gUvo4NidOLpgio3dvTGesEIXfqaBdfRN3oXq8JFrU3rLnk8w/qqE2rOobMdUu9cq4QStGm//NmOLtQed9oyOUk=
On 5/4/06, Aaron Glenn <email@example.com> wrote:
On 5/4/06, firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> wrote:
> why would anyone do that?
Some companies feel entitled to charging more for their routes than
they would for simple transit.
Hopefully this comes out clearly, as writing can be more confusing
Are you getting at Inter AS /SLA/QOS that you would get from transit
vs. best effort peering? Even that has some issues, the one that
jumps out to me is hopefully clearly stick figure-diagrammed below:
AS#x $--SLA-->Transit ok...
AS#x $--SLA-->Transit <-(second hop)--Customers/Peers---No Qos/SLA--->
My point is it is hard to do anything beyond the first AS# for any SLA
that you would be paying, since after that the packet switches to no
money packets on a paid connection, pushing out the issue for things
sent down that pipe...