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
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.
Description: S/MIME Kryptografische Unterschrift
Re: Tier1 blackholing policy? Jon Lewis (Apr 30)
Re: Tier1 blackholing policy? William Herrin (Apr 30)