Re: Carrier classification

[Large Hadron Collider <large.hadron.collider () gmx com>]

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