[194640] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Carrier classification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Tue May 16 00:30:23 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Ken Chase <math@sizone.org>,
Large Hadron Collider <large.hadron.collider@gmx.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 21:10:53 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20170516030136.GE15247@sizone.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--dV46VRsWb3qtW5vULkXNxulrS0sTucUUJ
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Ken Chase <math@sizone.org>,
Large Hadron Collider <large.hadron.collider@gmx.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <b21a4aa6-a71a-2473-cedd-aebccfacda05@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: Carrier classification
References: <07F5F811-BEBF-4F85-9A48-877CE676D05C@rivervalleyinternet.net>
<1883825586.6314.1494690988323.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
<773d1e05-3eb2-a91d-c07d-2a35fc7e9d54@seacom.mu>
<20170515220528.GD67218@caida.org>
<CAD6AjGQXVByjw_NGu86Ww1w6hQE9oGOvBPPqr3_eWZcW7P-bTA@mail.gmail.com>
<ba9d662d-37b6-9f95-1c05-073ab3b3bf46@gmx.com>
<20170516030136.GE15247@sizone.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170516030136.GE15247@sizone.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 5/15/17 10:01 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
> so cogent has no routes to some amount of v6? ie no routes
> to some prefixes?
it's easy enough to test
Test Router Location Hostname / IP Address=09
=09
2607:f8b0:4005:801::200e
Go!
Tue May 16 04:00:27.010 UTC
% Network not in table
http://www.cogentco.com/en/network/looking-glass
They're not the sole provider with a hole in their routing table, nor is
that the only hole. I would probably choose not to single home behind
any nominally SFI carrier, but on the other hand how useful such carrier
is in the first place has a lot to do with can they offload the traffic
you choose to send them, which is a different problem and should be
assessed accordingly.
> /kc
>=20
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:56:14PM -0700, Large Hadron Collider said:
> >My terminology of tiers are:
> >
> >Tier 1 - is in few or no major disputes, has no transit, and is able=
to
> >access over three nines percent of the internet
> >
> >Tier 2 - as Tier 1, but has transit.
> >
> >Cogent is neither on v6, and I have no clue about v4.
> >
> >HE is probably Tier 2 on v4, and is Tier 1 on v6.
> >
> >
> >On 15/05/2017 19:27, Ca By wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM Bradley Huffaker <bhuffake@caida.o=
rg> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >>>> Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completel=
y gone.
> >>> Putting aside the question of their importance, there is a small =
number
> >>> of ISPs that do no pay for transit. If you don't call them Tier 1=
, what
> >>> do you call them? Transit Free Providers (TFPs)?
> >>
> >> I think the broader and more relevant question is -- Does it matte=
r who
> >> pays who ? Why name an irrelevant characteristic?
> >>
> >> Cogent may not buy transit but i would not purchase their service =
since
> >> they fail to have full internet reach (google and HE)
> >>
> >> And xyz incumbent may have a poor network, but they may get free p=
eering or
> >> may get paid-peering because of their incumbent / monopoly status.=
=2E. that
> >> is not a reason for me to purchase from them or think they are an =
elite
> >> tier 1.
> >>
> >> The dynamica of the day are more around reach and quality, not som=
e legacy
> >> measure of how market-failure facilitate anti-social behavior
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> --
> >>> the value of a world model is not how accurately it captures =
reality
> >>> but how often it leads us to take appropriate action
> >>>
> >
>=20
--dV46VRsWb3qtW5vULkXNxulrS0sTucUUJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlkae80ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrIa3gCeNcHoUTtU634EuG10zUvo4qam
+JUAnRwABjAH7ZuPBwyp/9Qc8ampc1UO
=EoUD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--dV46VRsWb3qtW5vULkXNxulrS0sTucUUJ--
