[90161] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Tier 2 - Lease?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Wed May 3 12:49:48 2006
In-Reply-To: <20060503162306.GA3931@gweep.net>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:46:59 -0400
To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
The tier nomenclature also a really good way to instigate flame fests on
lists such as this.
Regards
Marshall
On May 3, 2006, at 12:23 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 10:38:22PM -0700, Robert Sherrard wrote:
>>
>> What make a provider a tier 2, versus a tier 1 provider...
>
> Marketing.
>
> The nomenclature is a completelyy irrelevant hangover of
> the NSFnet days when people thought in terms of "the backbone".
> If your providers' value is only in specific delicate
> contractural relationships that can vanish with little
> notice, is that really a value? You should examine carriers
> by your needs, performance, scope, reliability [human and
> network], cost, etc meaningful metrics. Get reference
> clients and query their technical staff. Get a view into
> their routing table and examine adjacenies.... if *you*
> care about a particular adjacency, press for performace
> data/trends.
>
> Joe
>
> --
> RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
