[61303] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Diaz)
Wed Aug 27 17:55:01 2003
In-Reply-To: <20030827122905.T18947-100000@legendz.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:53:58 -0400
To: Rick Ernst <erond@legendz.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: David Diaz <techlist@smoton.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I guess it depends on your traffic type and destination. Level 3 has
a lot of connectivity to content providers such as yahoo and
microsoft. As Joel P pointed out they have been a reliable backbone
with a lot of capacity.
They also have knowledgeable peering people although they lean
towards the restrictive side on policy (starting about a 18 months
ago)
Dave
At 12:32 -0700 8/27/03, Rick Ernst wrote:
>We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac
>OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with
><provider> because they don't have their own backbone.
>
>Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this just
>something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, Sprint,
>and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ?
>
>One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on
>reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize
>that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :)
>
>Thanks,
>Rick
