[194573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Carrier classification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Sat May 13 11:58:58 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 10:56:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <07F5F811-BEBF-4F85-9A48-877CE676D05C@rivervalleyinternet.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This debate has spilled onto NANOG from Facebook now...
My point is that while the term tier-1 (meaning no transit) isn't wrong, that the whole system is now irrelevant. Look at the Wikipedia list of "Tier 1" networks and then look at CAIDA, Dyn, QRator, HE's BGP Report, etc. There's some overlap between the historical "tier 1s" and the other rankings of usefulness, but the "tier 1s" are no longer the dominate networks they once were.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 10:44:14 AM
Subject: Carrier classification
Are the terms tier-1,2,3 dead terms or still valid ways to define carriers?
