I appreciate that warning. The bigger truth is, "No secondary/tertiary on that router/in that location." I do have iBGP with alternate providers through my core. much appreciated, Eric Louie -----Original Message----- From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:ikiris@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:23 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers If you don't have secondary connectivity, then I don't suggest going with a Teir 1. Using a peer-only as a transit link is not something I would recommend in general unless you know what you are doing in that regard, and have designed around the inevitable peering issues related to that decision. -Blake On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Eric Louie <elouie@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm thinking that same thing, although after researching, the "de-peering King" is probably not a contender as one of our primary upstream connection. (And I don't have secondary or tertiary connections)
much appreciated, Eric Louie
-----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:03 PM To: Eric Louie Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:45:34 -0700, "Eric Louie" said:
That's a good point with the Tier 2 providers. So that begs the question, why wouldn't I just get my upstream from a Tier 2? (Because my management is under the perception that we're better off with Tier 1 providers, but that doesn't mean their perception is accurate)
The good thing about your upstream being a Tier 2 is that it usually means that if somebody's baking a peering cake, you're not one of the AS's that's suffering.
Hmmm... if you're going for a connection to a Tier 1, maybe "peering cakes per decade" is a valid criterion?