[28279] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Table Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Mon Apr 24 09:34:19 2000
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowledge.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-Id: <E12jivh-000Onf-00@rip.psg.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:29:37 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I still do not understand what this pseudo-marketing distinction is.
i wonder if there is a reason. actually, i don't wonder.
> May I conjecture, in the light of the current discussion, that a "tier 1"
> ISP is one which makes a net profit from "peering" and a "tier 2" is one
> that does not ? Or is it that a "tier 2" ISP has real customers ?
teir-1s don't pay for routing to anywhere. tier-2s pay for routes from
tier-1s and may also pay for transit.
tier-1s seem to have the majority of the customers.
this may be good or bad. but it's the terminology we've been using for
about seven years now. of course tier-Ns, where N is greater than 1, seem
to have an interest in distorting it. big surprise.
randy
