Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers

[Ben Hatton <bhatton () htva net>]

> - time taken to turn around BGP import filter changes

So much This...  You don't realize how important this is until your
nationwide provider takes 8 WEEKS to add one network to your (already set
up and working for 20 other networks) peering.  Then decides to charge you
a fee for the change.

Ben Hatton
Network Systems Engineer



On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Justin M. Streiner <streiner () cluebyfour org
> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Eric Louie wrote:
>
>  Good stuff Justin - Any other criteria that you would use?
> >
>
> Joe covered a lot of good stuff in his response.
>
> A few providers call themselves Tier 1, though the accuracy of those
> assertions is often suspect.  The truth can be somewhat more complicated...
> and exactly how much more complicated isn't always clear
> until Provider X gets de-peered by Provider Y and finds themselves having
> to negotiate a quick fix, often by cutting a check.
>
> I would also ask people here who they have had very good experiences with,
> regardless of what "tier" the provider fits into.
>
> jms
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner@cluebyfour.**org<streiner () cluebyfour org>
> > ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:17 AM
> > To: nanog () nanog org
> > Subject: Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Eric Louie wrote:
> >
> >  Based on various conversation threads on Nanog I've come up with a few
> > > criteria for evaluating Tier 1 providers.  I'm open to add other
> > > criteria - what would you add to this list?  And how would I get a
> > > quantitative or qualitative measure of it?
> >
> > Define "Tier 1 provider".  I ask this because it's something that many
> > people don't know what it means, but assume that Tier 1 > Tier !=1.
> >
> >  routing stability
> > >
> >
> > Routeviews.org can shed some light here.
> >
> >  BGP community offerings
> > >
> >
> > If $provider has a page on www.peeringdb.com, they might publish a list
> > of
> > their BGP communities there.  Other places to look would be the provider's
> > whois/IRR entries, and on their respective websites, or the
> > sales/marketing
> > folks might be able to get this information for you.
> >
> >  congestion issues
> > >
> >
> > There are various internet traffic report / weather report sites that can
> > give you indirect insight into things like.  By indirect, I mean that you
> > might be able to infer things like congestion at a specific point based on
> > what you see on those sites.
> >
> >  BGP Peering relationships
> > >
> >
> > You can look at pages like www.peeringdb.com, and you will typically see
> > if
> > $provider is at an exchange, however the peering relationships that many
> > providers have other providers (locations, speeds, etc) are confidential.
> >
> >  path diversity
> > >
> >
> > You can ask $provider's sales and marketing folks, but there is no
> > guarantee
> > that you will get an answer (actual routes are considered confidential and
> > proprietary information, despite the fact that a lot of providers' fiber
> > ends up converging in a small handful of routes in some areas - i.e. many
> > of
> > them follow the same set of railroad tracks or cross a river at the same
> > bridge, possibly even in the same conduit) or a correct answer (wave X
> > might
> > be re-groomed onto path Y without a whole lot of customer notification).
> >
> >  IPv6 table size
> > >
> >
> > Sites like routeviews.org can give you some visibility here.
> >
> >  Seems like everyone offers 5 9's service, 45 ms coast-to-coast, 24x7
> > > customer support, 100/1Gbps/10Gbps with various DIR/CIR and burst rates.
> > > I'm shopping for new service and want to do better than choosing on
> > > reputation.  (or, is reputation also a criteria?)
> >
> > Absolutely reputation should be a factor.  I would argue that Internet
> > access is largely commoditized anymore (and has been for several years),
> > so
> > the real differentiators are cost and level of service.
> >
> > jms