nanog mailing list archives
Re: Carrier classification
From: joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 21:10:53 -0700
On 5/15/17 10:01 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
so cogent has no routes to some amount of v6? ie no routes to some prefixes?
it's easy enough to test Test Router Location Hostname / IP Address 2607:f8b0:4005:801::200e Go! Tue May 16 04:00:27.010 UTC % Network not in table http://www.cogentco.com/en/network/looking-glass They're not the sole provider with a hole in their routing table, nor is that the only hole. I would probably choose not to single home behind any nominally SFI carrier, but on the other hand how useful such carrier is in the first place has a lot to do with can they offload the traffic you choose to send them, which is a different problem and should be assessed accordingly.
/kc On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:56:14PM -0700, Large Hadron Collider said: >My terminology of tiers are: > >Tier 1 - is in few or no major disputes, has no transit, and is able to >access over three nines percent of the internet > >Tier 2 - as Tier 1, but has transit. > >Cogent is neither on v6, and I have no clue about v4. > >HE is probably Tier 2 on v4, and is Tier 1 on v6. > > >On 15/05/2017 19:27, Ca By wrote: >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM Bradley Huffaker <bhuffake () caida org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: >>>> Nowadays, I'm hearing this less and less, but it's not completely gone. >>> Putting aside the question of their importance, there is a small number >>> of ISPs that do no pay for transit. If you don't call them Tier 1, what >>> do you call them? Transit Free Providers (TFPs)? >> >> I think the broader and more relevant question is -- Does it matter who >> pays who ? Why name an irrelevant characteristic? >> >> Cogent may not buy transit but i would not purchase their service since >> they fail to have full internet reach (google and HE) >> >> And xyz incumbent may have a poor network, but they may get free peering or >> may get paid-peering because of their incumbent / monopoly status... that >> is not a reason for me to purchase from them or think they are an elite >> tier 1. >> >> The dynamica of the day are more around reach and quality, not some legacy >> measure of how market-failure facilitate anti-social behavior >> >> >> >>> -- >>> the value of a world model is not how accurately it captures reality >>> but how often it leads us to take appropriate action >>> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Current thread:
- Re: Carrier classification, (continued)
- Re: Carrier classification Ca By (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Matt Hoppes (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Mark Tinka (May 14)
- Re: Carrier classification Matt Hoppes (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Mike Hammett (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Ca By (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Mark Tinka (May 14)
- Re: Carrier classification Bradley Huffaker (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification Ca By (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification Large Hadron Collider (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification Ken Chase (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification joel jaeggli (May 15)
- Re: Carrier classification Ca By (May 13)
- Re: Carrier classification Randy Bush (May 15)