Are the terms tier-1,2,3 dead terms or still valid ways to define carriers?
So there are now Carrier Class carriers and Food Grade Carriers? Who in the greater community defines terms like this?
On May 13, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 8:45 AM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: Are the terms tier-1,2,3 dead terms or still valid ways to define carriers?
Yes, pretty much dead.
There are networks that meet your price / performance, and those that don't.
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. ----- 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?
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?
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. What I witnessed in Asia-Pac, Africa and parts of Europe, is that inexperienced engineers as well as sales & marketing people would use
On 5/13/17 5:56 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: the term "Tier 1" to refer to incumbent telecoms providers, especially if they are either a monopoly or had the largest customer base in that country and/or region. Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone. Mark.
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone.
Putting aside the question of their importance, there is a small number of ISPs that do no pay for transit. If you don't call them Tier 1, what do you call them? Transit Free Providers (TFPs)? -- the value of a world model is not how accurately it captures reality but how often it leads us to take appropriate action
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM Bradley Huffaker <bhuffake@caida.org> wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone.
Putting aside the question of their importance, there is a small number of ISPs that do no pay for transit. If you don't call them Tier 1, what do you call them? Transit Free Providers (TFPs)?
I think the broader and more relevant question is -- Does it matter who pays who ? Why name an irrelevant characteristic? Cogent may not buy transit but i would not purchase their service since they fail to have full internet reach (google and HE) And xyz incumbent may have a poor network, but they may get free peering or may get paid-peering because of their incumbent / monopoly status... that is not a reason for me to purchase from them or think they are an elite tier 1. The dynamica of the day are more around reach and quality, not some legacy measure of how market-failure facilitate anti-social behavior
-- the value of a world model is not how accurately it captures reality but how often it leads us to take appropriate action
My terminology of tiers are: Tier 1 - is in few or no major disputes, has no transit, and is able to access over three nines percent of the internet Tier 2 - as Tier 1, but has transit. Cogent is neither on v6, and I have no clue about v4. HE is probably Tier 2 on v4, and is Tier 1 on v6. On 15/05/2017 19:27, Ca By wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM Bradley Huffaker <bhuffake@caida.org> wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone. Putting aside the question of their importance, there is a small number of ISPs that do no pay for transit. If you don't call them Tier 1, what do you call them? Transit Free Providers (TFPs)?
I think the broader and more relevant question is -- Does it matter who pays who ? Why name an irrelevant characteristic?
Cogent may not buy transit but i would not purchase their service since they fail to have full internet reach (google and HE)
And xyz incumbent may have a poor network, but they may get free peering or may get paid-peering because of their incumbent / monopoly status... that is not a reason for me to purchase from them or think they are an elite tier 1.
The dynamica of the day are more around reach and quality, not some legacy measure of how market-failure facilitate anti-social behavior
-- the value of a world model is not how accurately it captures reality but how often it leads us to take appropriate action
so cogent has no routes to some amount of v6? ie no routes to some prefixes? /kc On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:56:14PM -0700, Large Hadron Collider said:
My terminology of tiers are:
Tier 1 - is in few or no major disputes, has no transit, and is able to access over three nines percent of the internet
Tier 2 - as Tier 1, but has transit.
Cogent is neither on v6, and I have no clue about v4.
HE is probably Tier 2 on v4, and is Tier 1 on v6.
On 15/05/2017 19:27, Ca By wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM Bradley Huffaker <bhuffake@caida.org> wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone. Putting aside the question of their importance, there is a small number of ISPs that do no pay for transit. If you don't call them Tier 1, what do you call them? Transit Free Providers (TFPs)?
I think the broader and more relevant question is -- Does it matter who pays who ? Why name an irrelevant characteristic?
Cogent may not buy transit but i would not purchase their service since they fail to have full internet reach (google and HE)
And xyz incumbent may have a poor network, but they may get free peering or may get paid-peering because of their incumbent / monopoly status... that is not a reason for me to purchase from them or think they are an elite tier 1.
The dynamica of the day are more around reach and quality, not some legacy measure of how market-failure facilitate anti-social behavior
-- the value of a world model is not how accurately it captures reality but how often it leads us to take appropriate action
-- Ken Chase - ken@heavycomputing.ca skype:kenchase23 +1 416 897 6284 Toronto Canada Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
On 5/15/17 10:01 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
so cogent has no routes to some amount of v6? ie no routes to some prefixes?
it's easy enough to test Test Router Location Hostname / IP Address 2607:f8b0:4005:801::200e Go! Tue May 16 04:00:27.010 UTC % Network not in table http://www.cogentco.com/en/network/looking-glass They're not the sole provider with a hole in their routing table, nor is that the only hole. I would probably choose not to single home behind any nominally SFI carrier, but on the other hand how useful such carrier is in the first place has a lot to do with can they offload the traffic you choose to send them, which is a different problem and should be assessed accordingly.
/kc
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:56:14PM -0700, Large Hadron Collider said:
My terminology of tiers are:
Tier 1 - is in few or no major disputes, has no transit, and is able to access over three nines percent of the internet
Tier 2 - as Tier 1, but has transit.
Cogent is neither on v6, and I have no clue about v4.
HE is probably Tier 2 on v4, and is Tier 1 on v6.
On 15/05/2017 19:27, Ca By wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM Bradley Huffaker <bhuffake@caida.org> wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone. Putting aside the question of their importance, there is a small number of ISPs that do no pay for transit. If you don't call them Tier 1, what do you call them? Transit Free Providers (TFPs)?
I think the broader and more relevant question is -- Does it matter who pays who ? Why name an irrelevant characteristic?
Cogent may not buy transit but i would not purchase their service since they fail to have full internet reach (google and HE)
And xyz incumbent may have a poor network, but they may get free peering or may get paid-peering because of their incumbent / monopoly status... that is not a reason for me to purchase from them or think they are an elite tier 1.
The dynamica of the day are more around reach and quality, not some legacy measure of how market-failure facilitate anti-social behavior
-- the value of a world model is not how accurately it captures reality but how often it leads us to take appropriate action
participants (9)
-
Bradley Huffaker -
Ca By -
joel jaeggli -
Ken Chase -
Large Hadron Collider -
Mark Tinka -
Matt Hoppes -
Mike Hammett -
Randy Bush