|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
On 10/6/05 10:30 AM, "Randy Bush" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when >>> selling internet access ? >> Its a great sales argument. That's why everyone claims to be >> one. It just sounds SO good. And its not like the Peering >> Police are going to enforce it. What does it mean in real >> life? Nothing. Nada. An organization's SFI status is a >> particularly poor criteria for choosing a transit >> provider. There are so many better factors to use - support, >> packet loss, price, latency, availability, provisioning speed >> - you name it, its a better criteria than SFI status. > > packet loss and latency to *where*? before replying, consider > that most of a leaf's traffic is either to/from another leaf of > a tier-1 to which they're (possibly indirectly) downstream, or > to/from the tree of a tier-1 which peers with the tier-1 to > which they're attached. > Consider this: A Tier 1 (SFI network) with congested peering links vs a non-SFI network with wide open transit pipes. I know I'd pick the latter. Latency when all inter-network links are uncongested is going to be pretty low in any case. > if tier-n, where n > 1, is buying transit from tier-1s, which > they have to do, then the price game seems to be pretty > determined unless one likes to run at a loss or is cross- > subsidizing from some other product line. > > all your bases are belong to us. :-) > > randy > Dan
|