North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: tiers?
Interesting Tier 1. You'd only have 2 Tier 1s in this case, MCI with their OC12 backbone and Sprint with their OC3 backbone. UUNET, ANS, BBN (the other big three) operate a DS3 backbone--UUNET is not yet at OC12 to the best of my knowledge. Put things into persepective. > > A number of ISP's and backbone providers (national and international) all > colocate on our facilities. One of the most asked questions I recieve from > everyone is the question asked regarding Tiers. I have come up with IMHO a > response to them that seems to be well accepted. Now I'm not saying this > is true in all instances, but it seems acceptable. > > I define a Tier 1 network as a company who has a robust OC3 backbone and > peers at a majority of the major NAPs (and private peering) in the U.S. and > around the world. Now, this OC3 backbone should not only go East to West > but North to South,be somewhat fault tolerant, and provide reasonable > connectivity to ISP's throughout the country and serve as gateway > connections to international backbone ISPs. If you use this loose > definition of Tier 1 network, you see immediately you have the big 10 or 15 > who are very selective in choosing their peering partners. > > A Tier 2 network could be defined as a DS3 backbone (maybe with some OC3 > but a majority DS3) who would have a large amount of bandwidth East to West > or North to South but does not have as large a communications > infrasturcture or network mesh as a Tier 1 provider. These companies would > peer at some of the major NAPs (plus private peering) but would also appear > as many of the other exchange points where the Tier 1 providers wouldnt > bother appearing. These Tier 2 players may peering with some ot the Tier 1 > but not all of them. Or even if they should because their network is not > as robust as the Teir 1 they would fall into the Tier 2 catagory. > > A Tier 3 network provider I consider to be a Regional backbone company. > This is a company to has a minimum of a 10 meg backbone within a region. > This is a company who is providing transit services to other smaller ISPs > within his region. He may connect at some of the regional exchange points > or conduct private peering with other Tier 3 providers in his area. > Typically this level network would not peering with a Tier 1 at all and > most Tier 2 providers will not peer either. > > Below Tier 3 are the ISP ranks, or smaller ISPs. > > Using this type of philosphy for defining Tiers could work with the U.S. > Domestic network providers but falls apart when you begin looking at a > global view. There are companies who would be considered a Tier 1 provider > within their own country but when they run their own bandwidth to the U.S. > they are often times considered a Tier 2 or lower Tier network when looking > for peering partners. As such they are often forced to purchase transit > from the U.S. Tier 1 or 2 providers. With this there is still an > inequality when trying to apply a Tier structure on an international basis. > There is no throught to the cost of the communications lines and and > sometimes the benefit that can be derived through a peering process with > international backbone networks (those with DS3 international lines). I'm > not saying this is true in all instances, but it appears to the the norm > rather than the exception. > > I think, IMHO, that by using this approach, combining both the size of the > physical network, technology and peering provides a starting point for > looking at or trying to define a Tier Structure. Will this work in all > cases??? I doubt it because there are always exceptions. But it is a > starting point for looking at networks from a global view. > > Rick > Telehouse America > (718)355-2559 > > P.S. The opinions present above are personal and in no way reflect the > views of Telehouse....:) > >
|