Re: multi homing pressure

["Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>]

It is not true. Many tier-2 ISP specializes in very ghigh quality Internet
access, so mnasking problems of big ISP (who in reality never can provide
high quality Internet at all). Good example - Internap.

So, it is not about tier-1 vs tier-2, it is about ISP specialized on cheap
acvcess and ISP specialized on quality access. Is COGENT (for example only -
I have nothing against them) tier-1 ISP - may be; are they high quality
ISP - in NO WAY (they just provide bandwidth to nowhere without any clue).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Dupuy" <jdupuy-list () socket net>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>; <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: multi homing pressure


> > For the customer with an Internet "mission critical app", being tied
> > to a Tier 2 has it's own set of problems, which might actually be
> > worse than being tied to a Tier 1.
>
> The key word is "might". In fact, I would posit that a Tier 2 with
multiply
> redundant transit to all of the Tier 1s could theoretically have better
> connectivity than an actual Tier 1. The Tier 2 transit provides
flexibility
> that the transit-free Tier 1s do not have. Just my opinion.
>
> Anyway, it has been my experience that most (but not all) of the customers
> that want to "multihome" are _really_ wanting either: A. geographic/router
> redundancy. or B. easy renumbering. Geographic redundancy can be done
> within a single AS and IP block. They just don't know to ask it that way.
> (And easy renumbering will eventually be solved with v6. Eventually.)
>
> The demand for multi-homing might not be as great as suspected.
>
> John