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

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, John Dupuy wrote:

> I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is where
> AS A advertises full routes to AS B. Thus, AS B is getting transit from A.
> Peering is where A & B only advertise their network and, possibly, the
> networks that stub or purchase transit from them.

no, they MUST send their customer nets else their customers will not have 
global reachability

> It is my understanding that the top ISPs "trade transit". They provide full 
> routes to each other without payment, regardless of how or where the route 
> was learned from. They are willing to pass some traffic without 
> compensation because it makes for better connectivity. From an announcement 
> POV they are not peering.

ahhh. no, they send peering only between each other (approx 50000 routes for 
each of the biggest providers - level3, sprint, uunet, at&t)

Steve

> I am still curious: do any of the larger ISPs on this list want to 
> confirm/deny the previous paragraph?
>
> I think we are getting into "defining terms" territory. So, I will bow out 
> of the discussion.
>
> John
>
> At 01:56 PM 3/29/2005, David Barak wrote:
>
> > --- John Dupuy <jdupuy-list () socket net> wrote:
> >
> > > But by the technical description of a "transit free
> > > zone", then 701 is not
> > > tier one, since I have encountered scenarios where
> > > many AS are transversed
> > > between 701 and other networks, not just a peer of a
> > > peer. Unless, by
> > > "transit free zone" you mean "transit trading" where
> > > large providers permit
> > > each other to transit for free. (Which gets back to
> > > my 'who hurts more'
> > > discussion.)
> >
> > <oversimplification>
> >
> > Transit = being someone's customer
> >
> > Peering = permitting your customers to go to your
> > peer's customers or the peer's network, but not the
> > peer's peers, without exchange of money.
> >
> > Any other relationship != peering for my purposes
> > (although lots of subtly different relationships
> > exist, the largest networks tend to take a view which
> > is not too dissimilar to the one shown above)
> >
> > </oversimplification>
> >
> > Are you implying that 701 is paying someone to carry
> > their prefixes?  While I'm not the peering coordinator
> > for 701, I would find that improbable.  I would expect
> > that money would flow the other direction (and thus
> > 701 would become a more valuable peer for other
> > networks).
> >
> > > I'm willing to be wrong. If any of the large
> > > providers on the list will say
> > > that their network does not transit beyond the
> > > customer of a peer; and they
> > > still maintain full connectivity, I will gladly be
> > > corrected.
> >
> > oodles and oodles of people can say this (and already
> > have).  A paying customer of mine can readvertise
> > (with a non-munged AS_PATH) any of my prefixes which
> > they want, and thus provide transit for other people
> > to reach me.  That does not change the fact that I'm
> > not paying for transit.
> >
> > So in short, I would say that T1 vs T2 etc is a
> > "follow the money":
> >
> > T1 => doesn't pay anyone else to carry their prefixes,
> > and runs a default-free network.
> >
> > T2 => pays one or more T1 providers to carry their
> > prefixes, may or may not run a default-free network.
> >
> > T3 => leaf node, pays one or more T1/T2 providers to
> > carry their traffic, probably uses default route.
> >
> > YMMV, blah blah blah
> >
> >
> > David Barak
> > Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise:
> > http://www.listentothefranchise.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
> > http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/