[79056] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Mar 29 12:23:59 2005
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>,
Nanog Mailing list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:17:21 +0100."
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0503281612480.30675-100000@server2.tcw.telecomplete.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:23:17 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1112116997_15283P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:17:21 +0100, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
> however alex, you do highlight an excellent point - things are not as simple as
> 'tier1, tier2', there are complicated routing and financial arrangements in
> operation, which brings me back to my earlier point: does it matter what a
> network is paying for some connectivity providing they deliver to you the
> connectivity you need at the quality you desire?
As long as their price point for their connectivity is set such that they
can remain a viable ongoing business concern while fulfilling the requirements
of my contract, it doesn't really matter, except at contract renegotiation time.
At that point, if I know they're making money off selling others transit to
my packets, I may try to negotiate a price concession....
--==_Exmh_1112116997_15283P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD4DBQFCSY8EcC3lWbTT17ARAvwiAKDfYTVVmwneUZ1MtnJl88+oDD54HQCWJXu7
jAgq7WICOnjtwetVd3IrOw==
=+g19
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1112116997_15283P--
