nanog mailing list archives
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:44:54 -0400
In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:39:42PM -0500, Matthew Sweet wrote:
Alot of carriers that have a "Nationwide backbone" actually lease their circuits (Layer 1 and 2) through various other carriers.
There are actually a lot more layers than that, not that most people interested in buying a circuit should care. Possible ownership changes occur at: - Owner of the right of way. - Owner of the duct. - Owner of the cable in the duct. - Owner of the fiber in the cable. - Owner of the wavelength on the fiber. - Owner of the circuit on the wavelength. - Owner of the channel on the circuit. - Owner of the VC on the channel (at least, for MPLS, ATM, and Frame) - Owner of the router. (I'll stop there for backbone purposes.) When people ask about ownership, I think they generally want to know the answer to three related questions: 1) Do you have the ability to turn up additional capacity "in time"? 2) Do you own the right bits of infrastructure so you can control cost (with right being the operative word, not a specific level)? 3) Do you have enough control over the chain above such that it won't be broken if someone who owns another part goes Chapter 7|11? I do wonder who owns it all. Most companies, even if they own their own fiber (fiber in the cable, or cable in the duct) don't own the duct or right of way. Many of the right of way owners don't do circuit or IP services at all. As a practical matter, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot where the divide is, as long as the company has it structured so the answers to those three questions are positive. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Tier-1 without their own backbone? Rick Ernst (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Christopher McCrory (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Petri Helenius (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Matthew Sweet (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Leo Bicknell (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? David Diaz (Aug 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Joel Perez (Aug 27)
- RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Sean Crandall (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? John Palmer (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Larry Rosenman (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Will Yardley (Aug 27)
- RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone? jlewis (Aug 27)
- GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) variable (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Jared Mauch (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Wayne E. Bouchard (Aug 28)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? John Palmer (Aug 27)