Re: Allegedly Tier 1s in Wikipedia

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> This conventional interpretation is the one I'm applying in this question.

I would argue even the 'conventional' definition of 'Tier 1' has been
nebulous for long enough that it doesn't really matter much anymore.

Who a network connects with and how is all that matters, regardless of what
label they want to apply to themselves.



On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 2:41 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:19 PM Geoff Huston <gih () apnic net> wrote:
> > > On 1 Aug 2022, at 11:10 am, Tom Paseka via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> wrote:
> > > Paying for "peering", doesn't stop you being a tier-1.
> > >
> > > Being a Tier-1 means you are "transit free" (technical term, not
> commercial). No one is transiting your routes to other Tier-1 providers.
> > >
> >
> > There are a lot of potential interpretations of “Tier 1” and often folk
> use the one that benefits their own classification (obviously!). The one I
> think corresponds to the conventional interpretation is "I’m a Tier 1
> because I have a SKA peering agreement with other Tier 1 networks and I pay
> no other network for transit or peering”, or more informally, “I’m a Tier 1
> because I pay nobody and everyone pays me, except for my peers.”
>
> This conventional interpretation is the one I'm applying in this question.
>
> > I suspect that what goes on is “I’m a Tier 1 because I say so, and noone
> has contradicted me yet!" :-)
>
> Which is unfortunately what some operators serving my region try
> applying. And after being contradicted, they move to "regional Tier-1"
> speech, which is something nobody ever defined.
>
>
> Rubens