[38627] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definition of Tier-1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Austin Schutz)
Fri Jun 8 14:04:21 2001
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:10:01 -0700
From: Austin Schutz <tex@off.org>
To: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
Cc: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010608111001.W25682@gblx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010608112311.00a07b00@10.30.15.2>; from rja@inet.org on Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 11:24:25AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 11:24:25AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> At 17:43 07/06/01, J.D. Falk wrote:
> > Breaking down? It used to be that anyone connected directly
> > to an exchange point was tier one, and the tiers are pretty
> > obvious beyond that. Now that everyone's at the exchanges,
> > "tier one" is simply a marketing term.
>
> Curious. I've never heard that definition of Tier-1 before.
> The common definition is "doesn't pay any other ISP to exchange routes
> and traffic", or so I've thought for the past decade.
>
> Ran
If you have an ISP which is diversely connected to all other(?)
tier-1 providers, and has a peering relationship such that the other
tier-1s only announce the ISP's routes to their customers, then it would seem
the ISP is from a technical standpoint a tier-1 provider.
IMO as an engineer and not a marketeer, who pays who should not have
bearing on that definition, though I agree that the "doesn't pay" definition
is the one I am familiar with.
Austin
