Talk:Tier 2 network

message: I think that this article's name should be Tier 2 carrier instead of Tier 2 Carrier because the article on Tier 1 is called Tier 1 carrier and not Tier 1 Carrier.  In either case the case should match for both articles.--b4hand 22:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has now been moved by Marudubshinki --Lox (t,c) 21:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change name to [[Tier 2 carrier]] 

message: BTN AS3491 is a tier 2 because it buys from SAVVIS. However, SAVVIS itself is also mentioned in the list. That seems wrong to me. --213.196.5.160 07:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is SAVVIS tier 1 or tier 2? 

message: According to this article, Connexions 4 London buys transit from Tiscali and Abovenet. However, according to the Tier 1 network article, they aren't Tier 1 networks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.125.221 (talk • contribs) 
:The definition in the article only says that tier 2 networks are networks who both peer and buy transit. It doesn't say that they have to buy that transit directly from a tier 1 . Plugwash (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: For the record, you can be a Tier 2, and buy transit from another Tier 2 provider, who in turn buys transit (be it from a Tier 1 or Tier 2 provider). Cogent is a good example, as it is Tier 2 (transit from Verio), and other networks can be classified as Tier 2 as they buy transit from them, but peer with other networks and sell transit. Hope this cleared up any confusion :) 60.234.212.157 09:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clearing something up

message: I've removed this section; it's futile as the list could run on to thousands of ISPs. 
Will-h 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Medium Sized International Tier 2 IPv4 ISPs 

message: I'm no expert, but as a reader of this page I find the Tier 3 portion confusing.
How can a Tier 3 provider be part of "depeering disputes" if they only buy transit and do not participate in peering?  Some clarification on the subject maybe?
The only understanding /conclusion that I can come to is that, a Tier 3 can cause a Tier 2 to lose their peering partners by pushing a lot of traffic though a Tier 2 network thus making that Tier 2 network usage unbalanced?   The article essentially make it sound as though Tier 3 is directly involved in depeering when in actual fact, they are not even peers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.214.40 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A provider can be affected by a peering dispute without being a party to it. Having said that I think that sentance should go, a tier 3 who is single homed with a good tier 2 is as resistant to peering disputes as the tier 2 they are single homed with. What makes you vulnerable to peering disputes is single homing with either a "tier 1" (or especially a wannabe tier 1) or a provider who only uses (directly or indirectly) a single tier 1 (or wannabe tier 1). Plugwash (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tier 3 

message: Another user recently removed the IPv4 section from the Hurricane Electric notes (on both this page and the Tier 1 page) and I undid those edits. Here's how we know that Hurricane Electric is still a Telia customer:
If you look up any Hurricane Electric v4 prefix on Telia's LG, you'll see the BGP communities and localpref on the routes. Telia's BGP documentation indicates that a localpref of 200 is reserved for customers, and that customer routes have a 1299:3x000 community. So we can see that Telia's network regards Hurricane Electric (via IPv4) as a customer, not a peer. This technical relationship no doubt reflects whatever business arrangement they have in place.
The Tier 1 networks page further says this is to reach "NTT/AS2914, Cogent/AS174, and Tata/AS6453." While I can't easily show whether or not this is an exhaustive list, we can check their respective looking glasses for the same IPv4 prefix(es) to see that AS1299 appears in the routes' path and that no direct peering exists.
Sadly, the above no doubt counts as "original research" and hence isn't suitable as a source (which appeared to be the other user's motivation for removing the notes). Do we need to find more robust sources than what's already on the article(s)? — CFSworks (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Electric (still) purchases transit from Telia