nanog mailing list archives
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
From: Eric Jensen <ejensen () jensenresearch com>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:30:16 -0500
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:09:43 -0500 From: Adam Rothschild <asr+nanog () latency net> On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () eeph com> wrote: > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at > work [...] ... If anything, these recent de-peerings underscore the lack of wisdom in end users connecting to (or purchasing CDN services from) members of the tier 1 club directly.
This is the take-away message for me. Buying transit from Tier 1 (and especially almost-Tier 1) providers is a risky idea for single-homed customers. Tier 1 connectivity could be cheaper, and could be better-performing, but has this potential for severe connectivity issues.
Single-homed end users would be well-advised to buy transit from a multi-homed tier 2/3 ISP. Single-homed SPs (such as Sprint Wireless, for example) should become multi-homed or buy transit from such a multi-homed tier 2/3 ISP as well.
- Eric
Current thread:
- Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage, (continued)
- Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage Marshall Eubanks (Nov 02)
- RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage Frank Bulk (Nov 02)
- RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage Randy Epstein (Nov 02)
- RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage Frank Bulk (Nov 02)
- Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage Colin Alston (Nov 02)
- Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage Colin Alston (Nov 02)
- Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage Florian Weimer (Nov 02)
- Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 05)
- Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage tvest (Nov 02)