Re: "Tier 1" vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: Marshall Eubanks (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 10:08:44 EST

  • Next message: Patrick W. Gilmore: "Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?"

    On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Eric Van Tol wrote:

    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: [mailto:]
    >> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:55 AM
    >>
    >> Let's put it another 'nother way.
    >> Would an end user get better connectivity by buying from a
    >> reseller of transit? In other words, buying transit from
    >> a network which also buys transit. Presumably up near the
    >> top of the chain (Tier 1 vicinity), that transit reseller
    >> has a lot of peering in place with other folks in the same
    >> neighborhood (Tier 1 vicinity). But as long as a network
    >> is a transit reseller (i.e. they buy transit), then they
    >> are less likely to suffer from partition events caused
    >> by fractious peering negotiations.
    >>
    >> --Michael Dillon
    >
    > Can anyone explain to me why end users find it so important to label
    > carriers as "Tier 1" or "Tier 2"?

    In my experience, end users generally don't know and almost never
    care. It's the sales people who talk about tiers.

    Regards
    Marshall

    > The prevailing theory in the heads of prospective customers is that
    > a "Tier 1" is somehow inherently better than a "Tier 2" (or lower),
    > even though they don't quite understand the concepts behind why the
    > "Tier" designation even exist(s/ed). These labels, at least to me,
    > are no longer very relevant in today's internet world. In fact,
    > would anyone agree that being a "Tier 1", as Cogent believes
    > themselves to be, leaves that network in a very painful position
    > when things like their frequent peering disputes happen?
    >
    > For an NSP, it's obviously a "good thing" to be SFI-only, as in
    > theory, it _should_ lower your costs. YMMV, as mentioned in a
    > previous thread. However, what does it really matter to an end-
    > user, especially if they are biased towards using "Tier 1" networks
    > only? Why does a network who purchases transit give the impression
    > to end users that that network's internet genitalia is somehow
    > smaller than, say, Verizon or AT&T? I can see merit in touting the
    > size and coverage of the actual network, but it's always been my
    > understanding that this is not the true definition of the tiered
    > system.
    >
    > -evt
    >


  • Next message: Patrick W. Gilmore: "Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD