At 13:28 19/04/00 -0600, Christian Nielsen wrote: The Oct 1999 issue of Data Communications (RIP), had a comprehensive article about peering: http://www.data.com/issue/991007/peering.html They detailed private and public peering (see their tables). They did it using MIDS which did 1.2 million traceroutes from various beacons located thruout the Internet. Very easy to determine who is a tier-1 and tier-2 ISP. -Hank
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Randy Bush wrote:
To further complicate matters, many networks out there are mis-representing themselves as [cost-free-] peering with other networks when they are actually customers, or in some type of 'settlement' arrangement.
i contend that one can count the true tier one networks on the fingers of two hands.
is a network tier one if they have settlement based peering? or is it just a network that sees no transit routes from any one company?
christian
only one problem, the data are badly broken. randy
They detailed private and public peering (see their tables). They did it using MIDS which did 1.2 million traceroutes from various beacons located thruout the Internet.
Very easy to determine who is a tier-1 and tier-2 ISP.
I still do not understand what this pseudo-marketing distinction is. May I conjecture, in the light of the current discussion, that a "tier 1" ISP is one which makes a net profit from "peering" and a "tier 2" is one that does not ? Or is it that a "tier 2" ISP has real customers ? Peter
I still do not understand what this pseudo-marketing distinction is.
i wonder if there is a reason. actually, i don't wonder.
May I conjecture, in the light of the current discussion, that a "tier 1" ISP is one which makes a net profit from "peering" and a "tier 2" is one that does not ? Or is it that a "tier 2" ISP has real customers ?
teir-1s don't pay for routing to anywhere. tier-2s pay for routes from tier-1s and may also pay for transit. tier-1s seem to have the majority of the customers. this may be good or bad. but it's the terminology we've been using for about seven years now. of course tier-Ns, where N is greater than 1, seem to have an interest in distorting it. big surprise. randy
At 06:29 AM 4/24/00 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
May I conjecture, in the light of the current discussion, that a "tier 1" ISP is one which makes a net profit from "peering" and a "tier 2" is one that does not ? Or is it that a "tier 2" ISP has real customers ?
teir-1s don't pay for routing to anywhere. tier-2s pay for routes from tier-1s and may also pay for transit.
The CTO of GTEI/BBN claimed that if their traffic flows were > 2:1 outbound to any network, they would pay the "peer" network for the imbalance. I do not know if their traffic is that unbalanced to any other network, but it is definitely a possible scenario. Would that make AS1 a "tier 2"? Why does the fact that a network is willing to pay peers for an obviously inequitable traffic balance make that network a non-tier-1? Why does that not just make them fair and reasonable? Of course, there are other ways of being "fair", such as the network with the web sites offering to carry the traffic long haul. But that would require an exchange of MEDs, something which you have personally claimed was a Bad Thing for years. So please help me understand how it is possible for a network which specializes in web hosting to become a tier-1? Even if it had a gigantic percentage of traffic on the Internet, other networks would still want it to pay for the traffic imbalance. Or does the definition of "tier-1" now include "balanced traffic flows"?
randy
TTFN, patrick -- I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com> "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle (Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)
It is possible for a network which specializes in web hosting to become a tier-1 by also getting eyeballs on their network. This is a good way to balance things. In most cases, your best peers will have "very balanced traffic flows". ----------------------- Marcellus Smith Broadband Office, Inc. marcellus@bbo.com (703) 748-7629 Office (703) 395-4275 Cell -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of I Am Not An Isp Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 9:55 AM To: Randy Bush; Peter Galbavy Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Peering Table Question At 06:29 AM 4/24/00 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
May I conjecture, in the light of the current discussion, that a "tier 1" ISP is one which makes a net profit from "peering" and a "tier 2" is one that does not ? Or is it that a "tier 2" ISP has real customers ?
teir-1s don't pay for routing to anywhere. tier-2s pay for routes from tier-1s and may also pay for transit.
The CTO of GTEI/BBN claimed that if their traffic flows were > 2:1 outbound to any network, they would pay the "peer" network for the imbalance. I do not know if their traffic is that unbalanced to any other network, but it is definitely a possible scenario. Would that make AS1 a "tier 2"? Why does the fact that a network is willing to pay peers for an obviously inequitable traffic balance make that network a non-tier-1? Why does that not just make them fair and reasonable? Of course, there are other ways of being "fair", such as the network with the web sites offering to carry the traffic long haul. But that would require an exchange of MEDs, something which you have personally claimed was a Bad Thing for years. So please help me understand how it is possible for a network which specializes in web hosting to become a tier-1? Even if it had a gigantic percentage of traffic on the Internet, other networks would still want it to pay for the traffic imbalance. Or does the definition of "tier-1" now include "balanced traffic flows"?
randy
TTFN, patrick -- I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com> "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle (Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 10:32:14AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: At 13:28 19/04/00 -0600, Christian Nielsen wrote: The Oct 1999 issue of Data Communications (RIP), had a comprehensive article about peering: http://www.data.com/issue/991007/peering.html They detailed private and public peering (see their tables). They did it using MIDS which did 1.2 million traceroutes from various beacons located thruout the Internet. Very easy to determine who is a tier-1 and tier-2 ISP. randy said: only one problem, the data are badly broken. that & the article.author seemed to have a penchant for fictional quotes. (i asked her about it when that article came out but never got a response, few others were bizarrely quoted as well) [cell-phone quality, ha, it's been years since i had Internet connectivity anywhere near as bad as my current cell phone connectivity. unless you count multicast. but who would.]
participants (6)
-
Hank Nussbacher -
I Am Not An Isp -
k claffy -
Marcellus Smith -
Peter Galbavy -
Randy Bush