Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Tier1 blackholing policy?
From: Thomas Schmid <schmid () dfn de>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:22:53 +0200

Am 30.04.2013 18:41, schrieb Patrick W. Gilmore:

Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.

On Apr 30, 2013, at 12:32, Thomas Schmid <schmid () dfn de> wrote:
Am 30.04.2013 17:53, schrieb Patrick W. Gilmore:
"Core"? Seriously? Which of these statements are true: A) Is it impossible for an end user or business (i.e. non-ISP) to get a direct 
connection to a "Tier 1" (whatever the hell that means) provider. B) Most traffic on the Internet traverses Tier 1s today. C) A Tier 1 
has a different profit motive than a Tier 2 (whatever the hell that means) providers. D) All Tier 1 providers are larger than all Tier 2 
providers. We'll just skip over the E) all of the above.
agree - I oversimplified, but I think you got the idea ...
No, I did not get the point.

I am not trolling. I just do not understand what you meant. Probably because there is no "core", so your statement did 
not make sense.

Patrick, what I mean is that someone that I pay money for providing me access to the guys I don't peer with, decides for me what's good (according to his criteria) for
me and my customers or even my customer's customers etc. If one of my peers
blackholes his customers, it's his business and not mine and I don't care.

While I eventually could vote with my wallet if I don't like that policy, my question was more, if that behavior is already that common at 'Tier1s' (definition omitted) that it would not make
a difference anyway.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Kryptografische Unterschrift

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]