mailing list archives
Re: tiers? (fwd)
From: Robert Bowman <rob () elite exodus net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Somehow I don't think the Tier 1 "definition" will ever be defined and agreed
upon. Marketing depts. throughout the industry have used it and all come
up with their own definition to suit their network. Is it the amount of
exchange points one is at? The amount of "true" private peerings one
has (not transit lines)? Is it the size of ones backbone in speed or
geographic diversity? The size of the routes propogated? Not having a
transit provider? Being connected to CIX?
I can argue for all of these, and I think everyone can that operates a
network. Therefore, being a subjective definition that was never clearly
decided upon by any reasonable process makes it about as useful as
Mae-West's UPS system.
The Tier 1 lingo is disappearing quickly--I hope it proceeds at that pace
to disappear completely. Hopefully useful terms can be devised to describe
the networks in a objective, technical fashion, not spun to hell and back by
our various marketing folks.
Exodus Communications Inc.
Does everyone agree with this, it's the only response I have received
thus far (and according to the list, the sender works for a tier 1 provider).
Tier 1: _Owns the fiber_, Multiple coast to coast paths of significant bandwidth
I don't think OWNS THE FIBER applies, but the rest is valid. I think a major
connotation to Tier 1 is "DEFAULT FREE"... That is they do not need a default
route to handle routes they don't receive through peering relationships.
Tier 2: Reseller, Major connections (DS3/OC3) to multiple tier 1 providers.
Possibly: Major connections to one (1) tier 1 provider.
Tier 3: Everybody else.
Anyone care to take a stab at what places a provider in
a given "tier-group"? Seems to me as though the large(st)
providers are a bit harsher (naturally) than the smaller
Re: tiers? (fwd) George Herbert (Jul 18)
Re: tiers? (fwd) Jon Hartford (Jul 18)