[38699] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Austin Schutz)
Mon Jun 11 03:51:14 2001
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:01:56 -0700
From: Austin Schutz <tex@off.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <20010611010156.B908@gblx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010610214453.A908@gblx.net>; from tex@off.org on Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 09:44:53PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 09:44:53PM -0700, Austin Schutz wrote:
> > o the folk most interested in revising the meaning of "tier-1" are
> > usually those who are not
>
> And the folks most interested in retaining the "current" definition
> are usually those incumbents who coined it and obtain the most benefit from
> the layer 8+ part of their definition.
>
> Austin
As someone who didn't know history, I see I am doomed to repeat it.
I see in the nanog archives the same topic discussed some months before I
joined the list. Apologies to all for rehashing hash.
Having said that, rfc2519 (published 2/1999) makes use of the term,
'"Tier 1"', without any implication as to whether or not the term implied
compensation for "transit". My point is not "I'm right", merely that the
term has effectively made its way from being merely marketspeak to common
technical usage, and that there may not be a common single technical
definition for the term.
Personally I think the network between my workstation and the local
quake server is tier 1, everything else falls somewhere below.
Austin
