On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 9:01 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
This debate has spilled onto NANOG from Facebook now...
My point is that while the term tier-1 (meaning no transit) isn't wrong, that the whole system is now irrelevant. Look at the Wikipedia list of "Tier 1" networks and then look at CAIDA, Dyn, QRator, HE's BGP Report, etc. There's some overlap between the historical "tier 1s" and the other rankings of usefulness, but the "tier 1s" are no longer the dominate networks they once were.
True.
For me the distinction is nearly all carriers provide full access to the internet, -- that is their job and the product they sell. While HE and Cogent only provide a subset. In the case of Cogent, they provide an even smaller subset since they don't provide access to Google on their ISP service.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 10:44:14 AM Subject: Carrier classification
Are the terms tier-1,2,3 dead terms or still valid ways to define carriers?