On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 09:44:53PM -0700, Austin Schutz wrote:
o the folk most interested in revising the meaning of "tier-1" are usually those who are not
And the folks most interested in retaining the "current" definition are usually those incumbents who coined it and obtain the most benefit from the layer 8+ part of their definition.
Austin
As someone who didn't know history, I see I am doomed to repeat it. I see in the nanog archives the same topic discussed some months before I joined the list. Apologies to all for rehashing hash. Having said that, rfc2519 (published 2/1999) makes use of the term, '"Tier 1"', without any implication as to whether or not the term implied compensation for "transit". My point is not "I'm right", merely that the term has effectively made its way from being merely marketspeak to common technical usage, and that there may not be a common single technical definition for the term. Personally I think the network between my workstation and the local quake server is tier 1, everything else falls somewhere below. Austin