i think the reasoning goes something like "your customers pay you to send this stuff out for them, you should share that money with the folks who do your final delivery for you."
Also "your customers pay you to get this stuff in for them, you should share that money with the folks who originate the stuff for you." Oh, they've both been paid to do their job. The argument goes on in circles. Sounds like peers. brandon
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:14:45 BST, brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk (BrandonButterworth) said:
Oh, they've both been paid to do their job. The argument goes on in circles.
Sounds like peers.
The two peers that come to mind are Beavis and Butthead. Not sure which is C&W and which is PSI though... ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, BrandonButterworth wrote:
i think the reasoning goes something like "your customers pay you to send this stuff out for them, you should share that money with the folks who do your final delivery for you."
Also "your customers pay you to get this stuff in for them, you should share that money with the folks who originate the stuff for you."
Oh, they've both been paid to do their job. The argument goes on in circles.
Sounds like peers.
This gets even weirder when the Tier1:s go after the end users. Heck, I know I cannot peer with UUNET (for example) as equal, but I do want to talk to them at local exchange points and give them my routes so they can use them nationally/locally and I want their national/local routes. I do not expect them to backhaul my traffic to the US from Europe, but I do want them to talk to me locally. I believe the whole structure of tier1, tier2 etc is breaking down and everybody is going after all customers, and that this will have interesting implications in the future. Personally, I firmly belive that my customers pay me to deliver their traffic the most efficient way possible. I don't care if this is content or "users", there are always two. Someone pays to get access, and someone else pays to provide content. ISPs are in the middle to provide the service of shuffling packets between these two. Let's do that as efficiently as possible. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 06/07/01, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
I believe the whole structure of tier1, tier2 etc is breaking down and everybody is going after all customers, and that this will have interesting implications in the future.
Breaking down? It used to be that anyone connected directly to an exchange point was tier one, and the tiers are pretty obvious beyond that. Now that everyone's at the exchanges, "tier one" is simply a marketing term. -- J.D. Falk SILENCE IS FOO! <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
Breaking down? It used to be that anyone connected directly to an exchange point was tier one, and the tiers are pretty obvious beyond that. Now that everyone's at the exchanges, "tier one" is simply a marketing term.
I believe the latest common definition of tier 1 in that of an ISP with no transit. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
On a bright Hawaiian full-moon night some folks wrote:
Breaking down? It used to be that anyone connected directly to an exchange point was tier one, and the tiers are pretty obvious beyond that. Now that everyone's at the exchanges, "tier one" is simply a marketing term.
I believe the latest common definition of tier 1 in that of an ISP with no transit.
When we started we had a nontransit, 2 cisco 7206, IP only, star topology (with arms to 5 international POPs), one customer network. Is this now being defined as tier 1 since we were doing nontransit only? scott
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 10:45:41PM +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote:
I believe the latest common definition of tier 1 in that of an ISP with no transit.
I believe that "Tier-1" no longer means anything. It was a term that had meaning when the government got out of the business of running NSFNet, and created "Tier-1 Providers" that connected to "Tier-2 Providers". At that time (if perhaps only for a fairly brief time) there were actual defined tiers, and they ment something. The mutation of "tier 1" to mean "transit free" is questionable at best. After all, if you're transit free, you should just advertise that fact if you think it's important. That said, many marketing folks still want to use the term "Tier-1". When a prospective customer asks me if my employer is "Tier-1" I always respond with "What does Tier-1 mean to you", and then address their specific concerns. You get some wildly different answers too. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 10:45:41PM +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote:
I believe the latest common definition of tier 1 in that of an ISP with no transit.
I believe that "Tier-1" no longer means anything. It was a term that had meaning when the government got out of the business of running NSFNet, and created "Tier-1 Providers" that connected to "Tier-2 Providers". At that time (if perhaps only for a fairly brief time) there were actual defined tiers, and they ment something.
There was never any governmental sanction of the term or concept of tier anything associate with the NSFnet or its transition. The term was coined in that timeframe by Vadim. --bill
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 04:40:10PM +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 10:45:41PM +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote:
I believe that "Tier-1" no longer means anything. It was a term that had meaning when the government got out of the business of running NSFNet, and created "Tier-1 Providers" that connected to "Tier-2 Providers". At that time (if perhaps only for a fairly brief time) there were actual defined tiers, and they ment something.
There was never any governmental sanction of the term or concept of tier anything associate with the NSFnet or its transition.
And this is definately a good thing. I don't think I would want to see my tax money being used by the Department of Standards to define "Tier-1". Thanks- Rachel -- I must admit, you have brought Religion in my life. I never believed in Hell until I met you.
At 17:43 07/06/01, J.D. Falk wrote:
Breaking down? It used to be that anyone connected directly to an exchange point was tier one, and the tiers are pretty obvious beyond that. Now that everyone's at the exchanges, "tier one" is simply a marketing term.
Curious. I've never heard that definition of Tier-1 before. The common definition is "doesn't pay any other ISP to exchange routes and traffic", or so I've thought for the past decade. Ran
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:24:25 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
Curious. I've never heard that definition of Tier-1 before. The common definition is "doesn't pay any other ISP to exchange routes and traffic", or so I've thought for the past decade.
I've seen people colo'ed at AboveNet and Exodus claiming to be "Tier-1" themselves. IMESHO, "Tier-1" = provider who wishes to believe that they are something special, but cannot provide any facts to substantiate their claim... hence they resort to vaguely-defined-at-best sales BS. Even if we were a "Tier-1" provider, I'd not want to use that term. What is the point in bragging about something with no standard definition? Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
I've seen people colo'ed at AboveNet and Exodus claiming to be "Tier-1" themselves.
IMESHO, "Tier-1" = provider who wishes to believe that they are something special, but cannot provide any facts to substantiate their claim... hence they resort to vaguely-defined-at-best sales BS.
That sales BS is probably prompted by customers telling sales people that they won't buy service from anyone but a "tier 1" provider. This leads to many creative definitions of tier 1. Normally, I've found that the customer doesn't actually mean that they want to buy service from only a transit-free provider, and the ones who do want to buy service from only a transit-free provider know who they need to buy service from, so there's a mismatch between the quasi-technical "transit-free" definition of Tier 1 and the marketingland "big backbone" definition. I'm not going to argue with someone's marketing department about whether they can sell a T1 to BobCo without defining themselves as "tier 1". Hell, I'm not even going to argue with my marketing department about it. The term is so depreciated in the real world that it is like telling someone they can't call a Canon copier a Xerox machine. -travis
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:16:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>
That sales BS is probably prompted by customers telling sales people that they won't buy service from anyone but a "tier 1" provider. This leads to many creative definitions of tier 1.
So, how firm is the "transit-free" definition? (That's what I always thought was the proper definition, but it's been obliterated in the past couple of years...) Firm enough to slap abusers with false advertising suits? ;-P Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:16:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>
That sales BS is probably prompted by customers telling sales people that they won't buy service from anyone but a "tier 1" provider. This leads to many creative definitions of tier 1.
So, how firm is the "transit-free" definition? (That's what I always thought was the proper definition, but it's been obliterated in the past couple of years...) Firm enough to slap abusers with false advertising suits? ;-P
Eddy
I also subscribe to the "transit-free" meaning of Tier 1, from a technical standpoint. However, when talking to suits, I find that I have to constantly explain the difference between the technical definition and some competitor's marketing definition. Have you ever told the marketing department that they can't call themselves Tier 1 but their competition (which isn't tier 1) can? If confusing people in suits makes you laugh, it's a blast. The part that really drives me crazy is that nobody seems to have played the "tier 2 and proud" card from a marketing standpoint. I can think of a few reasons why I'd rather not be transit free right now, and could probably successfully pitch those reasons to customers if I wanted to change careers. Since I'm not a lawyer, I really can't comment on a false advertising suit, but you could file one against a lot of people if you got the urge. cheers. -travis
On 06/11/01, "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net> wrote:
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:16:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>
That sales BS is probably prompted by customers telling sales people that they won't buy service from anyone but a "tier 1" provider. This leads to many creative definitions of tier 1.
So, how firm is the "transit-free" definition? (That's what I always thought was the proper definition, but it's been obliterated in the past couple of years...) Firm enough to slap abusers with false advertising suits? ;-P
Well, for one thing, "transit-free" doesn't mean that you can route to all the other "transit-free" providers.... -- J.D. Falk SILENCE IS FOO! <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, J.D. Falk wrote:
Well, for one thing, "transit-free" doesn't mean that you can route to all the other "transit-free" providers....
Unless you do what BBN/GTE/Genuity did during the period where they phased in (or was it out?) the ex-Genuity datacenters. We found lots of traffic heading out Sprint. I recall someone else mentioning that Exodus and Above used Sprint as their "backup transit" even though all the above networks are "Tier 1". We never got a clear answer from the noc on why the then BBN would not purchase transit for itself from itself. Out of curiousity, why is Sprint the common thread in these three datacenter network cases? Charles
-- J.D. Falk SILENCE IS FOO! <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, J.D. Falk wrote:
Well, for one thing, "transit-free" doesn't mean that you can route to all the other "transit-free" providers....
Unless you do what BBN/GTE/Genuity did during the period where they phased in (or was it out?) the ex-Genuity datacenters. We found lots of traffic heading out Sprint. I recall someone else mentioning that Exodus and Above used Sprint as their "backup transit" even though all the above networks are "Tier 1". We never got a clear answer from the noc on why the then BBN would not purchase transit for itself from itself.
Out of curiousity, why is Sprint the common thread in these three datacenter network cases?
Perhaps it was the 192.0.0.0/3 entry in the old RADB that Sprint entered?
Charles
-- J.D. Falk SILENCE IS FOO! <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
On 06/08/01, RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org> wrote:
At 17:43 07/06/01, J.D. Falk wrote:
Breaking down? It used to be that anyone connected directly to an exchange point was tier one, and the tiers are pretty obvious beyond that. Now that everyone's at the exchanges, "tier one" is simply a marketing term.
Curious. I've never heard that definition of Tier-1 before. The common definition is "doesn't pay any other ISP to exchange routes and traffic", or so I've thought for the past decade.
You know...the fact that nobody else has heard of it is making me start to think that I must've fallen for marketing drivel from a previous employer. See how insidious this stuff is? -- J.D. Falk SILENCE IS FOO! <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 11:24:25AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
At 17:43 07/06/01, J.D. Falk wrote:
Breaking down? It used to be that anyone connected directly to an exchange point was tier one, and the tiers are pretty obvious beyond that. Now that everyone's at the exchanges, "tier one" is simply a marketing term.
Curious. I've never heard that definition of Tier-1 before. The common definition is "doesn't pay any other ISP to exchange routes and traffic", or so I've thought for the past decade.
Ran
If you have an ISP which is diversely connected to all other(?) tier-1 providers, and has a peering relationship such that the other tier-1s only announce the ISP's routes to their customers, then it would seem the ISP is from a technical standpoint a tier-1 provider. IMO as an engineer and not a marketeer, who pays who should not have bearing on that definition, though I agree that the "doesn't pay" definition is the one I am familiar with. Austin
If you have an ISP which is diversely connected to all other(?) tier-1 providers, and has a peering relationship such that the other ^ settlement-free tier-1s only announce the ISP's routes to their customers, then it would seem the ISP is from a technical standpoint a tier-1 provider.
IMO as an engineer and not a marketeer, who pays who should not have bearing on that definition, though I agree that the "doesn't pay" definition is the one I am familiar with.
as this is nanog, not nanmg, let's stick to the old definition. randy
participants (15)
-
Austin Schutz -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk -
Charles Sprickman -
E.B. Dreger -
J.D. Falk -
Leo Bicknell -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Rachel Warren -
Randy Bush -
RJ Atkinson -
scott w -
Simon Lockhart -
Travis Pugh -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu