On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, John Dupuy wrote: > I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is where > AS A advertises full routes to AS B. Thus, AS B is getting transit from A. > Peering is where A & B only advertise their network and, possibly, the > networks that stub or purchase transit from them.
no, they MUST send their customer nets else their customers will not have global reachability > It is my understanding that the top ISPs "trade transit". They provide full > routes to each other without payment, regardless of how or where the route > was learned from. They are willing to pass some traffic without > compensation because it makes for better connectivity. From an announcement > POV they are not peering. ahhh. no, they send peering only between each other (approx 50000 routes for each of the biggest providers - level3, sprint, uunet, at&t) Steve > I am still curious: do any of the larger ISPs on this list want to > confirm/deny the previous paragraph? > > I think we are getting into "defining terms" territory. So, I will bow out > of the discussion. > > John > > At 01:56 PM 3/29/2005, David Barak wrote: > > >--- John Dupuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > But by the technical description of a "transit free > > > zone", then 701 is not > > > tier one, since I have encountered scenarios where > > > many AS are transversed > > > between 701 and other networks, not just a peer of a > > > peer. Unless, by > > > "transit free zone" you mean "transit trading" where > > > large providers permit > > > each other to transit for free. (Which gets back to > > > my 'who hurts more' > > > discussion.) > > > > > > ><oversimplification> > > > >Transit = being someone's customer > > > >Peering = permitting your customers to go to your > >peer's customers or the peer's network, but not the > >peer's peers, without exchange of money. > > > >Any other relationship != peering for my purposes > >(although lots of subtly different relationships > >exist, the largest networks tend to take a view which > >is not too dissimilar to the one shown above) > > > ></oversimplification> > > > >Are you implying that 701 is paying someone to carry > >their prefixes? While I'm not the peering coordinator > >for 701, I would find that improbable. I would expect > >that money would flow the other direction (and thus > >701 would become a more valuable peer for other > >networks). > > > > > I'm willing to be wrong. If any of the large > > > providers on the list will say > > > that their network does not transit beyond the > > > customer of a peer; and they > > > still maintain full connectivity, I will gladly be > > > corrected. > > > >oodles and oodles of people can say this (and already > >have). A paying customer of mine can readvertise > >(with a non-munged AS_PATH) any of my prefixes which > >they want, and thus provide transit for other people > >to reach me. That does not change the fact that I'm > >not paying for transit. > > > >So in short, I would say that T1 vs T2 etc is a > >"follow the money": > > > >T1 => doesn't pay anyone else to carry their prefixes, > >and runs a default-free network. > > > >T2 => pays one or more T1 providers to carry their > >prefixes, may or may not run a default-free network. > > > >T3 => leaf node, pays one or more T1/T2 providers to > >carry their traffic, probably uses default route. > > > >YMMV, blah blah blah > > > > > >David Barak > >Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: > >http://www.listentothefranchise.com > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. > >http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ > >
