[165265] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Louie)
Tue Aug 27 17:15:32 2013
From: "Eric Louie" <elouie@yahoo.com>
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
In-Reply-To: <27361.1377637350@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:14:12 -0700
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I'm thinking that same thing, although after researching, the "de-peering
King" is probably not a contender as one of our primary upstream connection.
(And I don't have secondary or tertiary connections)
much appreciated,
Eric Louie
-----Original Message-----
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:03 PM
To: Eric Louie
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:45:34 -0700, "Eric Louie" said:
> That's a good point with the Tier 2 providers. So that begs the
> question, why wouldn't I just get my upstream from a Tier 2? (Because
> my management is under the perception that we're better off with Tier
> 1 providers, but that doesn't mean their perception is accurate)
The good thing about your upstream being a Tier 2 is that it usually means
that if somebody's baking a peering cake, you're not one of the AS's that's
suffering.
Hmmm... if you're going for a connection to a Tier 1, maybe "peering cakes
per decade" is a valid criterion?
