nanog mailing list archives
Re: tiers? (fwd)
From: owen () DeLong SJ CA US (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Does everyone agree with this, it's the only response I have received thus far (and according to the list, the sender works for a tier 1 provider). [snip] Tier 1: _Owns the fiber_, Multiple coast to coast paths of significant bandwidth
I don't think OWNS THE FIBER applies, but the rest is valid. I think a major connotation to Tier 1 is "DEFAULT FREE"... That is they do not need a default route to handle routes they don't receive through peering relationships.
Tier 2: Reseller, Major connections (DS3/OC3) to multiple tier 1 providers. Possibly: Major connections to one (1) tier 1 provider. Tier 3: Everybody else.Anyone care to take a stab at what places a provider in a given "tier-group"? Seems to me as though the large(st) providers are a bit harsher (naturally) than the smaller providers.
Current thread:
- Re: tiers? (fwd) Danny (Jul 17)
- Re: tiers? (fwd) Owen DeLong (Jul 17)
- Re: tiers? (fwd) Robert Bowman (Jul 17)
- Re: tiers? Richard Mataka (Jul 18)
- Re: tiers? Robert Bowman (Jul 18)
- Re: tiers? Richard Mataka (Jul 18)
- Re: tiers? (fwd) Robert Bowman (Jul 17)
- Re: tiers? (fwd) Owen DeLong (Jul 17)
- Re: tiers? (fwd) Dorian R. Kim (Jul 17)
- Re: tiers? (fwd) George Herbert (Jul 17)
- Re: tiers? (fwd) Deepak Jain (Jul 18)
- silly tiers; treno Allan Chong (Jul 18)