Re: Carrier classification

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>]

On 5/13/17 5:56 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> This debate has spilled onto NANOG from Facebook now... 
>
> My point is that while the term tier-1 (meaning no transit) isn't wrong, that the whole system is now irrelevant. 
> Look at the Wikipedia list of "Tier 1" networks and then look at CAIDA, Dyn, QRator, HE's BGP Report, etc. There's 
> some overlap between the historical "tier 1s" and the other rankings of usefulness, but the "tier 1s" are no longer 
> the dominate networks they once were. 
What I witnessed in Asia-Pac, Africa and parts of Europe, is that
inexperienced engineers as well as sales & marketing people would use
the term "Tier 1" to refer to incumbent telecoms providers, especially
if they are either a monopoly or had the largest customer base in that
country and/or region.

Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone.

Mark.