> > This conventional interpretation is the one I'm applying in this question. >
I would argue even the 'conventional' definition of 'Tier 1' has been nebulous for long enough that it doesn't really matter much anymore. Who a network connects with and how is all that matters, regardless of what label they want to apply to themselves. On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 2:41 PM Rubens Kuhl <rube...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:19 PM Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 1 Aug 2022, at 11:10 am, Tom Paseka via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > > > > > > Paying for "peering", doesn't stop you being a tier-1. > > > > > > Being a Tier-1 means you are "transit free" (technical term, not > commercial). No one is transiting your routes to other Tier-1 providers. > > > > > > > There are a lot of potential interpretations of “Tier 1” and often folk > use the one that benefits their own classification (obviously!). The one I > think corresponds to the conventional interpretation is "I’m a Tier 1 > because I have a SKA peering agreement with other Tier 1 networks and I pay > no other network for transit or peering”, or more informally, “I’m a Tier 1 > because I pay nobody and everyone pays me, except for my peers.” > > This conventional interpretation is the one I'm applying in this question. > > > I suspect that what goes on is “I’m a Tier 1 because I say so, and noone > has contradicted me yet!" :-) > > Which is unfortunately what some operators serving my region try > applying. And after being contradicted, they move to "regional Tier-1" > speech, which is something nobody ever defined. > > > Rubens >