|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:33:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> To: nanog@nanog.org In-Reply-To: <ad7542dc0510060343k13756d7cp@mail.gmail.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote: > Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet > access ? Personally I think it's good strategy to multihome with one "tier-1" and one not so "tier-1". The ones further down the foodchain are more likely to be "peering whores" and therefore provide better connectivty to others like them. It's more likely someone skimps on connections they pay per meg for than peering links, therefore it's in my expereience more likely to be uncongested on peering links than transit links. So my answer to your question is "it depends". Using Tier-1:s as your only uplinks means everybody else is paying per meg to send traffic to you, is that what you want? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |