[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Carrier classification

Subject: Carrier classification
From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett)
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 10:56:28 -0500 (CDT)
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

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. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net> 
To: nanog at 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?

Follow-Ups:
- Carrier classification
  - From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By)
- Carrier classification
  - From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)

References:
- Carrier classification
  - From: mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net (Matt Hoppes)

Prev by Date: Carrier classification
Next by Date: Carrier classification
Previous by thread: Carrier classification
Next by thread: Carrier classification
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread