|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1)
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: > InterNAP. I'd actually specifically left them out, since even Tier 2 implies some sort of backbone, at least in my book, and since they don't get any points by calling themselves "tier 0". You might as well call band-x a tier 2 provider if Internap fits the definition. However, someone pointed out that Savvis was pushing the "tier 2 and loving it" strategy pretty hard. > > Personally I think the whole "tier 1" craze is overrated. I'd rather have > multiple good paths to my destination, and the ability to divert traffic > elsewhere in the event of a problem. It can cost a lot of time and money Amen to that. You only need to look as far as CW and PSI to see the faults in a transit-free environment. One business relationship on the rocks can destroy your full view of a routing table. However, from the position of a Tier 2, you can aggressively pursue both private and public peers and rest easy knowing that a dispute on the business side won't destroy your connectivity, just increase load on your transit. -travis > to get all the peering you need in all locations (or at least enough to > keep from bouncing traffic across the country because thats where your > peer is, or thats where your private peer is, etc). Then again it does > solve the problem of path selection by making it a non-issue, there is > only one path. > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) > >
|