This conventional interpretation is the one I'm applying in this question.

I would argue even the 'conventional' definition of 'Tier 1' has been nebulous for long enough that it doesn't really matter much anymore.

Who a network connects with and how is all that matters, regardless of what label they want to apply to themselves.

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 2:41 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:19 PM Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Aug 2022, at 11:10 am, Tom Paseka via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
> >
> > Paying for "peering", doesn't stop you being a tier-1.
> >
> > Being a Tier-1 means you are "transit free" (technical term, not commercial). No one is transiting your routes to other Tier-1 providers.
> >
>
> There are a lot of potential interpretations of “Tier 1” and often folk use the one that benefits their own classification (obviously!). The one I think corresponds to the conventional interpretation is "I’m a Tier 1 because I have a SKA peering agreement with other Tier 1 networks and I pay no other network for transit or peering”, or more informally, “I’m a Tier 1 because I pay nobody and everyone pays me, except for my peers.”

This conventional interpretation is the one I'm applying in this question.

> I suspect that what goes on is “I’m a Tier 1 because I say so, and noone has contradicted me yet!" :-)

Which is unfortunately what some operators serving my region try
applying. And after being contradicted, they move to "regional Tier-1"
speech, which is something nobody ever defined.

Rubens