nanog mailing list archives
Re: Carrier classification
From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 02:27:42 +0000
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM Bradley Huffaker <bhuffake () caida org> wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone.Putting aside the question of their importance, there is a small number of ISPs that do no pay for transit. If you don't call them Tier 1, what do you call them? Transit Free Providers (TFPs)?
I think the broader and more relevant question is -- Does it matter who pays who ? Why name an irrelevant characteristic? Cogent may not buy transit but i would not purchase their service since they fail to have full internet reach (google and HE) And xyz incumbent may have a poor network, but they may get free peering or may get paid-peering because of their incumbent / monopoly status... that is not a reason for me to purchase from them or think they are an elite tier 1. The dynamica of the day are more around reach and quality, not some legacy measure of how market-failure facilitate anti-social behavior
-- the value of a world model is not how accurately it captures reality but how often it leads us to take appropriate action
Current thread:
- Carrier classification Matt Hoppes (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Ca By (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Matt Hoppes (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Mark Tinka (May 14)
- Re: Carrier classification Matt Hoppes (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Mike Hammett (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Ca By (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Mark Tinka (May 14)
- Re: Carrier classification Bradley Huffaker (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification Ca By (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification Large Hadron Collider (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification Ken Chase (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification joel jaeggli (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification Ca By (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Randy Bush (May 15)