Trying to sort through the marketecture and salesman speak and get a
definitive answer.
I figure the NANOGers would be able to give me some input.
Is XO Communications a Tier 1 ISP?
I'd say no based on all research and googling that I've done but they
seem to meet some of the criteria (some != all and therefore not Tier
1).
Any help here? Thanks as always.
Chuck
Is XO Communications a Tier 1 ISP?
...
Any help here? Thanks as always.
Having written a good portion of that page, in the interest of full disclosure, I would like to point out some of the comments made while I was editing (and re-editing) the page.
I do not _know_ XO has settlement agreements with Sprint & L3. Such contracts are covered by NDA, so (supposedly) only certain people inside Sprint, L3, and XO know whether XO is paying settlements.
That said, does it matter? Settlement-Based may actually have a slight benefit over Settlement Free, as links which generate revenue may get upgraded faster than links which do not.
Perhaps more importantly, does Transit Free matter? A network which has two diverse transit providers is orders of magnitude less likely to be affected by bifurcation events than transit free networks.
Not to mention many non-transit free networks have better quality and service, IMHO, than some transit free networks.
But hey, your money, your bits, so your decision. You want to buy from XO because they are Transit Free, or not buy from them because they are not Tier One, so be it. What's that line about competitors and encouragement... ? =)
Do the best of my knowledge, no. The definition of 'Tier 1' is something of a moving target based on who you ask, but the most commonly stated criteria I've seen over the years are:
1. The provider does not buy IP transit from anyone - all traffic is moved
on settlement-free public or private interconnects. That's not to say
that the provider doesn't buy non-IP services (IRUs, lambdas, easements,
etc) from other providers on occasion.
2. The provider lives in the default-free zone, which is pretty much a
re-statement of point 1.
I'll leave discussions about geographical coverage out of it for now.
That said, I don't think XO meets the criteria above. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think they're totally settlement-free. Other providers like Cogent would fall into this bucket as well.
However, I also wouldn't get too hung up on tiers. Many very reliable, competent, and responsive providers providers but transit to handle at least some portion of their traffic. It also depends on what sort of service you need. For example, if you need a big MPLS pipe to another country, there are a limited number of providers who can do that, so they would tend to be the big guys. However, if you just need general IP transit, your options open up quite a bit.
jms
XO has been offering a product lately that is all routes except level3
and sprint which leads me to believe that they pay both of those
peers...
John van Oppen
Spectrum Networks LLC
Direct: 206.973.8302
Main: 206.973.8300
Website: http://spectrumnetworks.us
[snip]
Do the best of my knowledge, no. The definition of 'Tier 1' is something
of a moving target based on who you ask, but the most commonly stated
criteria I've seen over the years are:
1. The provider does not buy IP transit from anyone - all traffic is moved
on settlement-free public or private interconnects. That's not to say
that the provider doesn't buy non-IP services (IRUs, lambdas, easements,
etc) from other providers on occasion.
Purchasing other services is sometimes seen as a settlement, generally
based upon which end of the transaction one is sitting.
2. The provider lives in the default-free zone, which is pretty much a
re-statement of point 1.
Running without default (using full table, "default-free zone") Has
nothing to do with who you pay for what.
Discussion of "tiers" will inevitably reach topics of marketing &
market dominance [eg "tier one in my home region" for many PTTs]
and generally are not any kind of useful technical metric. In fact,
it can easily be argued that the networks which run without any form
of contractually binding vector for their customer's traffic are more
fragile than those who have one or more paths with dollars (and various
levels of penalties) attached.
Cheers!
Joe
1. The provider does not buy IP transit from anyone - all traffic is moved
on settlement-free public or private interconnects. That's not to say
that the provider doesn't buy non-IP services (IRUs, lambdas, easements,
etc) from other providers on occasion.Purchasing other services is sometimes seen as a settlement, generally
based upon which end of the transaction one is sitting.
Sure, that's possible. The agreements can be structured in many different ways. Since they're often covered by nondisclosure agreements, only a handful of people on either end know the full details.
Many of the peering agreements I've seen either worked the cost structure on a rotating (provider A buys the first link, provider B buys the second, etc) or a split (the two providers split the costs of the links) basis. Discussions about more advanced topics like traffic levels and settlement fall-back clauses are somewhat out of scope for this thread.
2. The provider lives in the default-free zone, which is pretty much a
re-statement of point 1.Running without default (using full table, "default-free zone") Has
nothing to do with who you pay for what.
Agreed. I brought it up because it's a common (but not entirely accurate) assumption that providers who live in the DFZ are Tier 1 providers.
Discussion of "tiers" will inevitably reach topics of marketing &
market dominance [eg "tier one in my home region" for many PTTs]
and generally are not any kind of useful technical metric. In fact,
it can easily be argued that the networks which run without any form
of contractually binding vector for their customer's traffic are more
fragile than those who have one or more paths with dollars (and various
levels of penalties) attached.
Agreed again, but it's something that operators will continue to deal with as long as some providers continue to play up their tier status and customers continue to attach some relevance or assumptions of performance or reliability to it.
jms
If you limit your consideration to how things look at IP and AP/AR, then the Tier-N discussion is solvable.
If you care about actual physical facilities, all bets are off. Taking a tangent from the diversity concept:
http://www.atis.org/ndai/ATIS_NDAI_Final_Report_2006.pdf
<war-story>
I worked at a CLEC that purchased two SS7 links, one each from two Very Big Carriers. Both wound up going through the same fiber bundle in one particular market, on which both big guys leased bandwidth from A Minor Carrier. I've never seen a VP run as fast as when that backhoe hit us in Illinois; turns out they only *look* slow.
</war-story>
You never really know...
David Hiers
CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP
ADP Dealer Services
2525 SW 1st Ave.
Suite 300W
Portland, OR 97201
o: 503-205-4467
f: 503-402-3277
Or there is a settlement in place, which is kinda-sortta the same thing, only not necessarily.
Or they are worried about their ratios to those two networks. Which may be because of settlements.
Or they might have capacity issues to those networks _because_ they do not pay those networks.
Or ....
Or you could be right. 