Route table growth and hardware to the filter

Bill Woodcock woody at
Sun Sep 23 20:20:08 UTC 2007

      On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 michael.dillon at wrote:
    > On the surface, the comment that I responded
    > to seemed to be repeating that commonly held belief than only 
    > transit-free, default-free providers with multiple peers for
    > any given prefix, can be considered Tier 1.

Well, taken in its entirety, that's the null set.  Hypothetically, setting 
aside the issue of mainland China, it could be the case that there would 
be a set of providers which were transit-free.  However, if they were 
transit-free, they would, by definition, never have more than one peer for 
any single-homed prefix.

But in any event, pretty much the definition of "tier 1" is the subset of 
providers which claim not to buy transit, and peer with each other, and 
not with anyone else.

Whether or not that set is empty or populated is one issue.
Whether the term is a useful one is a different issue.

How much of a liability it would be to one's self and one's customers to 
find one's self in that set is a third issue.

But I'm not convinced we have a disagreement on our hands here.  Just more 
of an argument.  :-)


More information about the NANOG mailing list