[194574] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Carrier classification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Sat May 13 12:21:20 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1883825586.6314.1494690988323.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 16:21:06 +0000
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 9:01 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
> True.
For me the distinction is nearly all carriers provide full access to the
internet, -- that is their job and the product they sell. While HE and
Cogent only provide a subset. In the case of Cogent, they provide an even
smaller subset since they don't provide access to Google on their ISP
service.
>
>
>
> -----
> 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?
>
>
