On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 9:01 AM Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> 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. > > True. For me the distinction is nearly all carriers provide full access to the internet, -- that is their job and the product they sell. While HE and Cogent only provide a subset. In the case of Cogent, they provide an even smaller subset since they don't provide access to Google on their ISP service. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > To: nanog@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? > >
