North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)

  • From: Todd Vierling
  • Date: Fri May 05 12:54:48 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=oEehozTYBemVhuOAvZ35ia1iqmKvJ4/pyWyauwzZOitJZ8bL592NWTm8wektTVpoNqEllGhoyw2dpQHX0eRaKsT1KM40UUbaXR92oaLBe88c7BCsAlV/IfHYExQykhSN8jwWEWcACBxgQzxfyHQUX3fIUMCo3zkrWV3A9XRVf1Y=

On 5/5/06, Peter Cohen <[email protected]> wrote:
Hopefully this comes out clearly, as writing can be more confusing
than speaking...
Are you getting at Inter AS /SLA/QOS that you would get from transit
vs. best effort peering?   Even that has some issues, the one that
jumps out to me is hopefully clearly stick figure-diagrammed below:

AS#x $--SLA-->Transit  ok...
AS#x $--SLA-->Transit <-(second hop)--Customers/Peers---No Qos/SLA--->

My point is it is hard to do anything beyond the first AS# for any SLA
that you would be paying,
You can't *guarantee* better service once the packet leaves your
provider's upstream ASs.  However, there are hardware-appliance and
connectivity vendors who make it their job to come very close, as long
as the far-end network has at least one good, near-end reachable path.
That's where the concept of route control (where BGP, with all the
modern weighting frills, is not the final arbiter of route decisions)
comes into play.  Extending that concept, if *both* ends have some
sort of route control in place, via the same vendor or not, you're
even more likely to get good service quality even if the SFI providers
in the middle suck at any given time.

(ObAdvertisingSquelch:  I have direct involvement in this subject, so
I won't discuss vendor names on-list to avoid conflict of interest.)

-- Todd Vierling <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>