Re: Carrier classification

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 9:01 AM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

> 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.
>
> True.

For me the distinction is  nearly all carriers provide full access to the
internet, -- that is their job and the product they sell. While HE and
Cogent only provide a subset. In the case of Cogent, they provide an even
smaller subset since they don't provide access to Google on their ISP
service.



> -----
> 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?