Why so little traffic from C&W

i think the reasoning goes something like "your customers pay you to send
this stuff out for them, you should share that money with the folks who
do your final delivery for you."

Also "your customers pay you to get this stuff in for them, you
should share that money with the folks who originate the stuff for you."

Oh, they've both been paid to do their job. The argument goes on in circles.

Sounds like peers.

brandon

The two peers that come to mind are Beavis and Butthead.

Not sure which is C&W and which is PSI though... :wink:

This gets even weirder when the Tier1:s go after the end users. Heck, I
know I cannot peer with UUNET (for example) as equal, but I do want to
talk to them at local exchange points and give them my routes so they can
use them nationally/locally and I want their national/local routes. I do
not expect them to backhaul my traffic to the US from Europe, but I do
want them to talk to me locally.

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.

Personally, I firmly belive that my customers pay me to deliver their
traffic the most efficient way possible. I don't care if this is content
or "users", there are always two. Someone pays to get access, and someone
else pays to provide content. ISPs are in the middle to provide the
service of shuffling packets between these two. Let's do that as
efficiently as possible.

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.

Curious. I've never heard that definition of Tier-1 before.
The common definition is "doesn't pay any other ISP to exchange routes
and traffic", or so I've thought for the past decade.

Ran

Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:24:25 -0400
From: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>

        Curious. I've never heard that definition of Tier-1 before.
The common definition is "doesn't pay any other ISP to exchange routes
and traffic", or so I've thought for the past decade.

I've seen people colo'ed at AboveNet and Exodus claiming to be "Tier-1"
themselves.

IMESHO, "Tier-1" = provider who wishes to believe that they are something
special, but cannot provide any facts to substantiate their claim... hence
they resort to vaguely-defined-at-best sales BS.

Even if we were a "Tier-1" provider, I'd not want to use that term. What
is the point in bragging about something with no standard definition?

Eddy

That sales BS is probably prompted by customers telling sales people that
they won't buy service from anyone but a "tier 1" provider. This leads to
many creative definitions of tier 1.

Normally, I've found that the customer doesn't actually mean that they
want to buy service from only a transit-free provider, and the ones who
do want to buy service from only a transit-free provider know who they
need to buy service from, so there's a mismatch between the
quasi-technical "transit-free" definition of Tier 1 and the marketingland
"big backbone" definition.

I'm not going to argue with someone's marketing department about whether
they can sell a T1 to BobCo without defining themselves as "tier 1".
Hell, I'm not even going to argue with my marketing department about
it. The term is so depreciated in the real world that it is like telling
someone they can't call a Canon copier a Xerox machine.

-travis

You know...the fact that nobody else has heard of it is making
  me start to think that I must've fallen for marketing drivel
  from a previous employer.

  See how insidious this stuff is?

If you have an ISP which is diversely connected to all other(?)
tier-1 providers, and has a peering relationship such that the other
tier-1s only announce the ISP's routes to their customers, then it would seem
the ISP is from a technical standpoint a tier-1 provider.
  IMO as an engineer and not a marketeer, who pays who should not have
bearing on that definition, though I agree that the "doesn't pay" definition
is the one I am familiar with.

  Austin

If you have an ISP which is diversely connected to all other(?)
tier-1 providers, and has a peering relationship such that the other

                             ^ settlement-free

tier-1s only announce the ISP's routes to their customers, then it would seem
the ISP is from a technical standpoint a tier-1 provider.

IMO as an engineer and not a marketeer, who pays who should not have
bearing on that definition, though I agree that the "doesn't pay"
definition is the one I am familiar with.

as this is nanog, not nanmg, let's stick to the old definition.

randy

Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>

That sales BS is probably prompted by customers telling sales people
that they won't buy service from anyone but a "tier 1" provider. This
leads to many creative definitions of tier 1.

So, how firm is the "transit-free" definition? (That's what I always
thought was the proper definition, but it's been obliterated in the past
couple of years...) Firm enough to slap abusers with false advertising
suits? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Eddy

I also subscribe to the "transit-free" meaning of Tier 1, from a technical
standpoint. However, when talking to suits, I find that I have to
constantly explain the difference between the technical definition and
some competitor's marketing definition. Have you ever told the marketing
department that they can't call themselves Tier 1 but their competition
(which isn't tier 1) can? If confusing people in suits makes you laugh,
it's a blast.

The part that really drives me crazy is that nobody seems to have played
the "tier 2 and proud" card from a marketing standpoint. I can think of a
few reasons why I'd rather not be transit free right now, and could
probably successfully pitch those reasons to customers if I wanted to
change careers.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I really can't comment on a false advertising
suit, but you could file one against a lot of people if you got the urge.

cheers.

-travis

Well, for one thing, "transit-free" doesn't mean that you
  can route to all the other "transit-free" providers....

  Well, for one thing, "transit-free" doesn't mean that you
  can route to all the other "transit-free" providers....

Unless you do what BBN/GTE/Genuity did during the period where they phased
in (or was it out?) the ex-Genuity datacenters. We found lots of traffic
heading out Sprint. I recall someone else mentioning that Exodus and
Above used Sprint as their "backup transit" even though all the above
networks are "Tier 1". We never got a clear answer from the noc on why
the then BBN would not purchase transit for itself from itself.

Out of curiousity, why is Sprint the common thread in these three
datacenter network cases?

Charles