Talk:Tier 1 network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:VSNL_International_Canada VSNL's article seems to describe it as a Tier1 ISP. Either that article or this needs fixing.
The article title should be "Tier 1 ISPs". A tier one carrier, meaning a telecom carrier of voice services is something different and is definable via FCC rules. (Unknown Commenter)
"This is what happened between Cogent and Level 3 recently." --This needs to be replaced with the date of the occurance and a brief explanation. I know Wikipedia tries to be timely but "recently" ages fast. I am leaving this comment as I am not the one qualified to write about this. Ray Trygstad 14:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- this appears to have been fixed. Good call. Jasongetsdown 17:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Should be locked and/or have an accuracy dispute disclaimer: In light of the persistent vandalism (some of it traceable to Cogent, and I don't use the term vandalism lightly), shouldn't this article be appropriately marked with a disclaimer that its accuracy is in dispute and locked so that non-registered users can't edit? Same comment has already been made in talk for Cogent Communications —Ke4djt @ 1358, 04 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Proposed merge from List of tier 1 internet service providers
The companion article is just a short list, and really has no meaning outside the context of the main article, and isn't referenced outside the main article. -- Randal L. Schwartz 16:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
just because you put an article on wikipedia doesn't mean the information is true. If you ask 100 people what a Tier 1 ISP is you'll get 10+ different answers...there is no common definition. Just because you don't own the fiber in the ground doesn't mean you don't privately peer with the other larger ISPs.
[edit] Merging List of tier 1 internet service providers
I'm merging the contents of List of tier 1 internet service providers. This should be a quick merge.
However, that article is in the odd situation of having a talk page MUCH longer than the article itself! I don't know if we're supposed to merge the talk pages too. For now, here's a link to the talk page as it stands now... talk page snapshot Jamie 01:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge complete. The page still needs to be cleaned up and wikified. Jamie 01:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] hah?
It reads "Tier 1's gain a significant portion of their IP Transit revenue from traffic which stays "on-net", by being delivered between two customers without ever leaving its network." Since they work only on peering isn't "free" delivery the _only_ thing tier 1 carriers know? --161.76.99.106 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason this is the case is becasue Tier 1 providers actually get paid _twice_ for on-net traffic as it travels between customers instead of going from a customer to a peer. --- Jwvo 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of tier 1's updated
List of tier 1 isp's were updated, to include several that people always leave out as well as fix the status of Cogent Communications. Which is _NOT_ a tier 1 isp. Soms
Since folks wanted to explicitly exclude one ASn from one of thee entrants, fleshed out several of the other ASNs from the named entities which 'don't count". jzp
Someone added Teleglobe/VSNL to the list of Tier 1s. I fixed the entry to match the others and updated the total number at the top of the list. I did this only to fix the readability of the list and I can't vouch for the accuracy of including Teleglobe/VSNL on the list. If someone with the expertise can do a check I would greatly appreciate it. Sperril 19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it was removed. Sperril 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV Tag
The tag was added by MureninC, who (from text not shown correctly in the tag) says:
- "This list looks really strange, it only has one non-american company, and major players like Telia are not here at all; information must be extended, and if Telia etc. do not qualify, then they must be put into Tier 2 article with explanations"
I don't know enough about the subject to comment either way, so comments are appreciated. It would probably help to have verified sources for this information (cf. WP:NOR) --H2g2bob 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to globalise tag, as that seems more in-keeping with the problem --H2g2bob 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved text by 81.234.199.232 from page to here (info appears to be correct, so adding): --H2g2bob 23:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- What about TeliaSoneraIC AS1299? (not AS 5518, 3308 or 3301) --81.234.199.232
For the record, 70.224.205.218 removed this again, as "Telia is not a Tier1 (see def: settlement free and no transit)" --H2g2bob 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Would someone like to tell me why TIER1-carrier Telia IC 1299 is being removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.234.199.232 (talk • contribs).
- Re-added TeliaSoneraIC with disputed tag. The crux of this confusion, I think, may stem from the definition of Tier 1 carrier. TeliaSoneraIC claims on it's website that it's a "Tier 1 carrier" [1], but it may be unclear what definition of "Tier 1" they are using. Tier 1 on this page is stated as being an ISP which doesn't pay for peering with any other ISPs. I don't know any way of verifying whether the ISP is Tier 1 in this context or not, perhaps someone can suggest something. --H2g2bob 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- PS, Don't forget you can sign posts like this: ~~~~
I havent got any ideas of TSIC peering agreements, but they have directpeering to all other TIER1-carriers in market, and they are a very significant provider in Europe. When AGIS was bought several years ago, they "received" TIER-1 status in the US(which I guess they already had in Europe). ~~81.234.199.232
why has TSIC's been removed again(excuse my language now) what the f*ck? If someone's gonna keep removing it, It would be pretty good if that person had some arguments stating that TSIC is not TIER1, if not stop removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.234.199.232 (talk • contribs).
- Reverted edit so it's back on the page. It has a disputed tag, so it's bad wikiquette to remove it without explanation on the talk page. --H2g2bob 11:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
TSIC removed again.... I'm still trying to find an explanation. Couldnt anyone lock the edit-function so its not possible to just remove without a valid explanation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.234.199.232 (talk • contribs).
Why? Simple. Telia purchases transit from 701 and 7018 (and others?) and is therefore not a tier 1 provider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.227.33 (talk • contribs).
Still just plain comments without any resources given at all. And I can tell you one thing for sure - that is tsic does NOT purchase transit from 7018. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.234.199.232 (talk • contribs).
No, TSIC purchases transit from AT&T and UUNET. This is easily verifiable w/ BGP communities and looking at PTR records for the kind of devices they connect to. Would the fact that you're posting from a telia.com host (corporate firewall?) have anything to do with your inaccuracy and bias? :)
I'd like to hear how you can determine who x buys transit from by looking at PTR records?
teliasonera.CUSTOMER.alter.net == probably a customer and not a peer, one would think :)
Sure, I've seen that one, but I havent seen one from AT&T, unless you are thinking of att-gw.ny.telia.net, though that one doesnt reveal any peer/transit.
You know guys, we could leave this discussion at "they purchase UUNET transit and are therefore not settlemen free" and end the bickering right now. TSIC is not tier 1.
[edit] List of Not-Tier-1's
Ok people, I know we ALL think that our favorite carriers are Tier 1's because their website says it is, but that doesn't make it so. In addition to some blatant vandalism from Cogent and Telia staff repeatedly adding themselves, there are no shortage of well meaning users who want to add networks because they legitimately believe that they know of a new tier 1 which hasn't been mentioned. Please, let me assure you that every true Tier 1 has been included in the list of 9, and all of the common misconceptions and previous subjects of debate have been added to the Not-Tier-1 list, along with a verifiable reason why they are not.
Just because a network is not a Tier 1 does not make it any more or less important, so PLEASE stop vandalizing the legitimate technical facts of this article with marketing. If you think you have a network which is a tier 1 and isn't listed, please ask here and someone will be happy to research it and tell you why it isn't and help you add it to the Not-Tier-1 list. If you have any doubt in your mind, ask yourself "am I an expert in the complex issues surrounding tier 1 interconnection?". If the answer is no, the network you're thinking of is probably not a tier 1.
Thanks you! :)
Humble226 07:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess youre referring to me(81.234.199.232) as a "telia employee", I would just ask you to do a lockup or a check on ripe, which will verify where and to what that ip-adress belongs to. HINT - it's not 1299. You mentioned research, obviously you missed that part yourself.
AboveNet does NOT buy from Sprint where do you people get your information from. Take your sales FUD and go sell POTS lines.
We need to take a look at AS6461 (abovenet)... I can't find any evidance that they actually buy transit as stated here. In fact, until 2004 they provided transit for cogent. If i take a look at a BGP feed from them, I see every tier one as a direct neighbor. That being said, if they are tier 1, they are the smallest one given they only announce about 4700 routes to their peers --- Jwvo 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Under normal circumstances they use BGP communities to only accept Sprint customer routes, and to restrict propagation of their announcements to Sprint customers. But they definitely receive a full table from Sprint, and they have used it in the past when necessary. For example, when ATDN was threatening to depeer them due to their ratio, the Sprint routes came out to reduce traffic via ATDN peers. You can also see that they are terminated onto customer gateway routers, not peering routers:
Name: sl-gw19-rly-3-0.sprintlink.net Address: 144.232.247.85
Name: sl-abovenet-19-0.sprintlink.net Address: 144.232.247.86
Until recently you could even see the full routes in their looking glass, but they finally blocked access to this view.
Humble226 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like cogent just recently started getting a direct peer from sprint. The router names on the sprint traceroute are identical to those on Sprint's Level3 peer. Based on that, I am going to assume it is settlement free:
trace from sprint to level3:
1 144.232.1.170 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 sl-st20-la-11-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.94) 108 msec 4 msec 196 msec 3 so-1-0-0.gar1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (64.152.193.73) [AS 3356] 4 msec 108 msec 12 msec 4 ae-2-52.bbr2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.33) [AS 3356] 0 msec
trace from sprint to cogent:
1 sl-bb24-ana-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.1.138) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 sl-st21-la-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.69) 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec 3 154.54.13.41 [AS 174] 72 msec 0 msec 0 msec 4 t3-2.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.21) [AS 174] 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 5 t8-4.mpd01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.197) [AS 174] 36 msec 32 msec 36 msec
Cogent does however seem to be continuing to use verio transit to reach AOL (traceroute from cogent's side):
Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.aol.com.websys.akadns.net (64.12.192.2)
1 g10-0-224.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.4.5) 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 2 t3-1.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.102) 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec 3 t2-1.mpd01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.181) 16 msec 12 msec 16 msec 4 v3490.mpd01.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.82) 12 msec 16 msec 12 msec 5 verio.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.50) 36 msec 12 msec 12 msec 6 p16-0.aol.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.9.42) 16 msec 12 msec 16 msec 7 bb1-sjg-P0-0.atdn.net (66.185.150.80) 12 msec 16 msec 12 msec 8 bb1-ash-P14-0.atdn.net (66.185.153.58) 84 msec 84 msec 84 msec 9 pop3-ash-P0-0.atdn.net (66.185.148.209) 188 msec 84 msec 84 msec 10 dar1-mtc-S0-0-0.atdn.net (66.185.148.222) 84 msec 84 msec 84 msec
Jwvo 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Not-tier-1's
I do think the 'not tier 1' section is quite confusing. I understand the need for a list of those commonly (and wrongly) assigned to being Tier 1 but my first impression when scrolling through the article was that this must be a list of Tier1's, now the text does make this clear but I think maybe a heading with something like "Non Tier 1 networks attributed to be Tier 1" (or something slightly more concise perhaps?)
ny156uk 08:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is ATDN a Tier 1 Network?
I am looking at Route views routing archive to test tier 1 claims. I am a very beginner. When I saw the following, my initial thought was that ATDN (AS1668) buys transit from 703. Isn't that true? If not, can someone tell me which ISPs are peering and which ISPs are buying transit from others?
[vijay@lab data]$ grep "2914 701 703 1668" oix-full-snapshot-2006-07-01-0000.dat | uniq * 129.250.0.85 6 0 2914 701 703 1668 i [vijay@lab data]$ grep "7018 701 703 1668" oix-full-snapshot-2006-07-01-0000.dat | uniq * 12.0.1.63 0 7018 701 703 1668 i
--Vijaykcm 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Who was forgotten?
Whoever did this list seems to have forgotten Cable & Wireless. They are a British company who owns, operates and leases backbone, pipe, bandwidth (whatever you want to name it) to other telecom companies across the world. To leave them out of a list like this seems to be a disservice by the uninformed.
Cable & Wireless (AS1273) buys transit from Level 3 (AS3356) and Savvis (AS3561). You can see paths like the following ones from route-views.
11608 2914 3356 1273 8866 9070 20876 31296 35424 11608 2914 3356 1273 9158 11608 2914 3356 1273 9158 15564 11608 2914 3356 1273 9158 35376 11608 2914 3561 1273 11608 2914 3561 1273 10292 11608 2914 3561 1273 1103 1104 11608 2914 3561 1273 1103 1128 11608 2914 3561 1273 1103 12654
--Vijaykcm 04:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Tier 1 IPv4 ISPs
The page says "The following 10 networks are generally believed to be the only Tier 1 ISPs worldwide." As of right now, I only count nine. Which is number ten? Dalef 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
