RE: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers

["Eric Louie" <elouie () yahoo com>]

I appreciate that warning.  The bigger truth is, "No secondary/tertiary on
that router/in that location."  I do have iBGP with alternate providers
through my core.

much appreciated,
Eric Louie


-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:ikiris () gmail com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:23 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers

If you don't have secondary connectivity, then I don't suggest going with a
Teir 1. Using a peer-only as a transit link is not something I would
recommend in general unless you know what you are doing in that regard, and
have designed around the inevitable peering issues related to that decision.

-Blake


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Eric Louie <elouie () yahoo com> wrote:

> I'm thinking that same thing, although after researching, the 
> "de-peering King" is probably not a contender as one of our primary 
> upstream connection.
> (And I don't have secondary or tertiary connections)
>
> much appreciated,
> Eric Louie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:03 PM
> To: Eric Louie
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers
>
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:45:34 -0700, "Eric Louie" said:
>
> > That's a good point with the Tier 2 providers.  So that begs the 
> > question, why wouldn't I just get my upstream from a Tier 2?  
> > (Because my management is under the perception that we're better off 
> > with Tier
> > 1 providers, but that doesn't mean their perception is accurate)
>
> The good thing about your upstream being a Tier 2 is that it usually 
> means that if somebody's baking a peering cake, you're not one of the 
> AS's that's suffering.
>
> Hmmm... if you're going for a connection to a Tier 1, maybe "peering 
> cakes per decade" is a valid criterion?