Re: Carrier classification

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

This debate has spilled onto NANOG from Facebook now... 

My point is that while the term tier-1 (meaning no transit) isn't wrong, that the whole system is now irrelevant. Look 
at the Wikipedia list of "Tier 1" networks and then look at CAIDA, Dyn, QRator, HE's BGP Report, etc. There's some 
overlap between the historical "tier 1s" and the other rankings of usefulness, but the "tier 1s" are no longer the 
dominate networks they once were. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net> 
To: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 10:44:14 AM 
Subject: Carrier classification 

Are the terms tier-1,2,3 dead terms or still valid ways to define carriers?