North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
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 <aaron.glenn@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/06, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
>
> why would anyone do that?
>
> --bill
>
Some companies feel entitled to charging more for their routes than
they would for simple transit.
aaron.glenn
John:
Hopefully this comes out clearly, as writing can be more confusing
than speaking...
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...
But...
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...
Peter Cohen
| 
