Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2005, at 11:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > > forget this concept of tier1, 2, 3 .. they are little more than terms used
> > > by salesmen.
> >
> > at least t1 and t2, also permeate academic papers where the real topology is
> > actually measured.  but we should not let demonstrable measurements get in
> > the way of our defense of the position of our smaller networks by marketing
> > people.
>
> And how, pray tell, does one actually "measure" T1 vs. T2 networks?  
> (Assuming you are not talking about two of the Terminator movies. ;-)

i would agree it is possible to mark some networks as transit free - tier1 - and 
therefore any network using a tier1 to access another tier1 is tier2. arguably a 
tier3 would be a network not connected to a tier1.

> If someone is paying Network A, but sends communities to be treated as 
> a peer, are they T1 or T2?

imho: T1, forget the money

<other points snipped, i largely agree :)>

> Back on a more operational topic, it really doesn't matter what "tier"  you
> are, it just matters how good your connectivity is.  There is no need to
> 'defend' the 'smaller networks'.  Some of the "tier 1" networks have totally
> suck ass connectivity.  (Yes, 'suck ass' is a technical term. =)

absolutely!! it amazes me how much value is placed in this 'tier' system, why 
not just buy connectivity that (a) is compatible with your size as an ISP (b) 
reliably delivers bits from A to B

Steve