[108999] in North American Network Operators' Group
"Tier 1" vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Van Tol)
Mon Nov 3 10:03:50 2008
From: Eric Van Tol <eric@atlantech.net>
To: "'michael.dillon@bt.com'" <michael.dillon@bt.com>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:02:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC091C0926@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael.dillon@bt.com [mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:55 AM
>
> Let's put it another 'nother way.
> Would an end user get better connectivity by buying from a
> reseller of transit? In other words, buying transit from
> a network which also buys transit. Presumably up near the
> top of the chain (Tier 1 vicinity), that transit reseller
> has a lot of peering in place with other folks in the same
> neighborhood (Tier 1 vicinity). But as long as a network
> is a transit reseller (i.e. they buy transit), then they
> are less likely to suffer from partition events caused
> by fractious peering negotiations.
>
> --Michael Dillon
Can anyone explain to me why end users find it so important to label carrie=
rs as "Tier 1" or "Tier 2"? The prevailing theory in the heads of prospect=
ive customers is that a "Tier 1" is somehow inherently better than a "Tier =
2" (or lower), even though they don't quite understand the concepts behind =
why the "Tier" designation even exist(s/ed). These labels, at least to me,=
are no longer very relevant in today's internet world. In fact, would any=
one agree that being a "Tier 1", as Cogent believes themselves to be, leave=
s that network in a very painful position when things like their frequent p=
eering disputes happen?
For an NSP, it's obviously a "good thing" to be SFI-only, as in theory, it =
_should_ lower your costs. YMMV, as mentioned in a previous thread. Howev=
er, what does it really matter to an end-user, especially if they are biase=
d towards using "Tier 1" networks only? Why does a network who purchases t=
ransit give the impression to end users that that network's internet genita=
lia is somehow smaller than, say, Verizon or AT&T? I can see merit in tout=
ing the size and coverage of the actual network, but it's always been my un=
derstanding that this is not the true definition of the tiered system.
-evt
