nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why so little traffic from C&W
From: George William Herbert <gherbert () retro com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:47:03 -0700
JD wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se> wrote:I believe the whole structure of tier1, tier2 etc is breaking down and everybody is going after all customers, and that this will have interesting implications in the future.Breaking down? It used to be that anyone connected directly to an exchange point was tier one, and the tiers are pretty obvious beyond that. Now that everyone's at the exchanges, "tier one" is simply a marketing term.
To "an" exchange point? It certainly didn't start out that way; in the 93-94 timeframe it was pretty clear tier 1's brought their bandwidth around the country and connected wherever possible, not just at one point. I have to agree that the "structure" is breaking down, if nothing else because people don't agree with what the definitions are (though, a coherent case can be made that we never did... like peering policies spinning in the wind, definitions have changed a lot over the years). -george william herbert gherbert () retro com
Current thread:
- Re: Definition of Tier-1, (continued)
- Re: Definition of Tier-1 E.B. Dreger (Jun 08)
- Re: Definition of Tier-1 Travis Pugh (Jun 08)
- non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1) E.B. Dreger (Jun 11)
- Re: non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1) Travis Pugh (Jun 11)
- Re: non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1) J.D. Falk (Jun 11)
- Re: non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1) Charles Sprickman (Jun 11)
- Re: non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1) bmanning (Jun 11)
- Re: Definition of Tier-1 J.D. Falk (Jun 08)
- Re: Definition of Tier-1 Austin Schutz (Jun 08)
- Re: Definition of Tier-1 Randy Bush (Jun 08)