Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers
elouie at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 27 21:31:22 UTC 2013
I appreciate that warning. The bigger truth is, "No secondary/tertiary on
that router/in that location." I do have iBGP with alternate providers
through my core.
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:ikiris at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:23 PM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers
If you don't have secondary connectivity, then I don't suggest going with a
Teir 1. Using a peer-only as a transit link is not something I would
recommend in general unless you know what you are doing in that regard, and
have designed around the inevitable peering issues related to that decision.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Eric Louie <elouie at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking that same thing, although after researching, the
> "de-peering King" is probably not a contender as one of our primary
> upstream connection.
> (And I don't have secondary or tertiary connections)
> much appreciated,
> Eric Louie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:03 PM
> To: Eric Louie
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Evaluating Tier 1 Internet providers
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:45:34 -0700, "Eric Louie" said:
> > That's a good point with the Tier 2 providers. So that begs the
> > question, why wouldn't I just get my upstream from a Tier 2?
> > (Because my management is under the perception that we're better off
> > with Tier
> > 1 providers, but that doesn't mean their perception is accurate)
> The good thing about your upstream being a Tier 2 is that it usually
> means that if somebody's baking a peering cake, you're not one of the
> AS's that's suffering.
> Hmmm... if you're going for a connection to a Tier 1, maybe "peering
> cakes per decade" is a valid criterion?
More information about the NANOG